國立高雄大學圖資館 |

Language: English

Back

Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process.
Author:	Ruffin, James Leslie.
Description:	340 p.
Notes:	Chair: Robert J. Silverman.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-01, Section: A, page: 0339.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International63-01A.
Subject:	Law.
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3040952
ISBN:	0493544062

Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process.
Ruffin, James Leslie.

Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process. [electronic resource] - 340 p.

Chair: Robert J. Silverman.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Fielding Graduate Institute, 2002.

The current research examined the law enforcement officer perspective regarding the use of deceit and trickery during criminal interviews and interrogations. There are currently varied debates on the appropriateness of these techniques and the impact on criminal suspects. Legal scholars allege that these techniques violate the protections conceived with <italic>Miranda</italic>. Psychologists suggest the techniques place a suspect in a vulnerable position, a position that may cause false confessions. The courts have provided little guidance, leaving officers free to explore the boundaries of acceptable methods. The present research targeted the law enforcement community of federal, state, and local officers using a combined methodology of survey research and in-depth interviews. Eight hundred forty surveys were distributed nationally to those officers who regularly conduct interviews, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 additional officers. The survey consisted of 21 questions and 9 additional questions for demographic and training information. The survey was designed to collect information about what perceptions officers have about their use of trickery and deceit in order to obtain confessions, to identify their perceptions about the use of trickery and deceit as its use applies to the <italic>Miranda </italic> warnings, and to determine whether officers perceive trickery and deceit as a tactic that removes voluntariness from <italic>Miranda</italic> waivers and confessions. Results substantiate that officers believe trickery and deceit are an appropriate tool for law enforcement and that the use of the technique does not negatively impact <italic>Miranda</italic>. Further, officers believe the techniques are ethical and professional, and that departments should not establish guidelines restricting their use. Lastly, although officers felt <italic>Miranda</italic> was still a viable tool for the protection of civil rights, individual officers or departments should not be held civilly liable for violations of <italic>Miranda</italic>. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of what is being argued by those in the legal and social science fields.

ISBN: 0493544062Subjects--Topical Terms:

207600
Law.

Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process.
LDR:03202nmm 2200253 450 001 155123
005 20030117152120.5
008 230606s2002 eng d
020 $a 0493544062
035 $a 00087648
035 $a 155123
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 0 $a Ruffin, James Leslie. $3 212809
245 1 0 $a Law enforcement perspectives on the use of trickery and deceit during the interrogation process. $h [electronic resource]
300 $a 340 p.
500 $a Chair: Robert J. Silverman.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-01, Section: A, page: 0339.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Fielding Graduate Institute, 2002.
520 # $a The current research examined the law enforcement officer perspective regarding the use of deceit and trickery during criminal interviews and interrogations. There are currently varied debates on the appropriateness of these techniques and the impact on criminal suspects. Legal scholars allege that these techniques violate the protections conceived with <italic>Miranda</italic>. Psychologists suggest the techniques place a suspect in a vulnerable position, a position that may cause false confessions. The courts have provided little guidance, leaving officers free to explore the boundaries of acceptable methods. The present research targeted the law enforcement community of federal, state, and local officers using a combined methodology of survey research and in-depth interviews. Eight hundred forty surveys were distributed nationally to those officers who regularly conduct interviews, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 additional officers. The survey consisted of 21 questions and 9 additional questions for demographic and training information. The survey was designed to collect information about what perceptions officers have about their use of trickery and deceit in order to obtain confessions, to identify their perceptions about the use of trickery and deceit as its use applies to the <italic>Miranda </italic> warnings, and to determine whether officers perceive trickery and deceit as a tactic that removes voluntariness from <italic>Miranda</italic> waivers and confessions. Results substantiate that officers believe trickery and deceit are an appropriate tool for law enforcement and that the use of the technique does not negatively impact <italic>Miranda</italic>. Further, officers believe the techniques are ethical and professional, and that departments should not establish guidelines restricting their use. Lastly, although officers felt <italic>Miranda</italic> was still a viable tool for the protection of civil rights, individual officers or departments should not be held civilly liable for violations of <italic>Miranda</italic>. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of what is being argued by those in the legal and social science fields.
590 $a School code: 1410.
650 # 0 $a Law. $3 207600
650 # 0 $a Sociology, Criminology and Penology. $3 212412
650 # 0 $a Psychology, Social. $3 177541
710 0 # $a Fielding Graduate Institute. $3 212808
773 0 # $g 63-01A. $t Dissertation Abstracts International
790 $a 1410
790 1 0 $a Silverman, Robert J., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2002
856 4 0 $u http://libsw.nuk.edu.tw/login?url=http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3040952 $z http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3040952