Monday, March 23, 2015

Confessions coerced by Schools


School officials learning coercive interrogations tactics to extract confessions from kids, Posted on March 23, 2015 Written by rawstory.com
Adult inter­ro­ga­tion meth­ods do not belong in the class­room, so why are school admin­is­tra­tors through­out the United States being trained to use them on their stu­dents in order to extract confessions?
John E. Reid & Asso­ciates is the largest inter­ro­ga­tion trainer in the world and teaches such meth­ods to hun­dreds of school admin­is­tra­tors each year. Last month, mem­bers of the Illi­nois Prin­ci­pals Asso­ci­a­tion, for instance, could reg­is­ter for a “pro­fes­sional devel­op­ment” event on “Inves­tiga­tive Inter­view­ing and Active Per­sua­sion”. The School Admin­is­tra­tors Asso­ci­a­tion of New York State recently offered a work­shop for admin­is­tra­tors on this same topic, titled “Are you Sure They Are Telling the Truth”?
These admin­is­tra­tors are learn­ing the “Reid Tech­nique”, which relies on “max­i­miza­tion” and “min­i­miza­tion” tac­tics in order to induce sus­pects to con­fess. Min­i­miza­tion focuses on reduc­ing a suspect’s feel­ings of guilt, while max­i­miza­tion is designed to heighten sus­pect anx­i­ety using con­fronta­tion. Both tech­niques are legal and both are incred­i­bly coercive.
Con­trolled stud­ies of Reid inter­ro­ga­tion have doc­u­mented that while such tech­niques may increase the like­li­hood that a guilty per­son will con­fess, they also increase the like­li­hood that an inno­cent per­son will as well. New research released in Feb­ru­ary found that the Reid tech­nique causes wit­nesses to falsely impli­cate others.
Reid & Asso­ciates itself advises cau­tion when using the tech­nique on chil­dren, espe­cially in schools. In addi­tion to con­cerns about the effi­cacy of principal-administered inter­ro­ga­tions are those involv­ing basic fair­ness: school admin­is­tra­tors are not required to issue Miranda warn­ings to chil­dren they inter­ro­gate on their own (with­out law enforce­ment present), so chil­dren are not advised of their rights to an attor­ney or to remain silent.
There is already a well-recognized trend of law enforce­ment coerc­ing con­fes­sions from the young and vul­ner­a­ble – siphon­ing them into the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. One exam­ple is the Engle­wood Four in Chicago. Teenage boys were coerced into falsely con­fess­ing to a mur­der on the south side of the city, and spent more than 15 years in prison as a result. Ter­rill Swift, one of the Four, is my client in a civil suit against his police inter­roga­tors. There are many recent, less-trumpeted cases, where the coer­cion of youth seems less an out­lier than a gen­eral police tactic.
Juve­nile coerced con­fes­sions share cer­tain hall­marks: use of intim­i­da­tion, threats, promises of leniency, and out­right lies, so that the youth feel their only way out is by con­fess­ing. Adult inter­roga­tors take advan­tage of the fact that chil­dren are less mature and more sus­cep­ti­ble to pres­sure, and that they lack the expe­ri­ence to make deci­sions in their best inter­est. Youth in the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem are more likely to have diag­nos­able psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­or­ders, and they often fall vic­tim to the “sta­tus dif­fer­en­tial” — youth feel com­pelled to answer police ques­tions because of the offi­cers’ ele­vated posi­tion of power. All of this is why the young are much more likely than adults to give false confessions.
Sub­ject­ing chil­dren to coer­cive inter­ro­ga­tions by school offi­cials serves no other pur­pose than to esca­late the flow of our nation’s youth into the school-to-prison pipeline, a phe­nom­e­non by which vio­la­tions of school rules become crim­i­nal­ized and chil­dren – par­tic­u­larly poor, LGBTQ, black and his­panic chil­dren – are fun­neled out of schools and into jails and pris­ons. Not only does the pipeline lead to higher rates of incar­cer­a­tion but it also results in eco­nomic inse­cu­rity.
Rather than train­ing prin­ci­pals to inter­ro­gate, schools should focus on non-punitive approaches like in-school behav­ior mod­i­fi­ca­tion, men­tor­ship, and diver­sion tac­tics. That is the more eth­i­cal and community-centered approach.
Related Posts

No comments:

Post a Comment