Tag Archive for Logic

Are Truth Tellers Less Cooperative?

by  • March 6, 2013 • 0 Comments

The most influential manual regarding suspect interviewing was written by Fred Inbau, Reid and Buckley in 2001 “Criminal interrogation and confession” and is the handbook used by police officers in training. The “Reid nine steps” claims that after being accused of having committed a crime, those under investigation who are innocent will tend to be more cooperative than deceptive when compared to guilty suspects. The theory says that honest suspects will cooperate and work harder to show their innocence, whereas the guilty will appear less cooperative, and so appear less convincing.

Inbau provides a few examples. He says that suspects who are guilty will want to exit the interview as quickly as possible. They will say things like “Well, I figured you wouldn’t believe me. It’s been nice talking to you but I have an attorney to see.” On the other hand, suspects who are innocent will not want to exit the interview room after being falsely accused so they will insist on remaining as long as possible to present the truth to the investigator. In fact, the manual states that innocent suspects, will remain until they have had the opportunity to present enough information to eliminate themselves as a suspect.

The argument of cooperation does seem plausible and some studies do support the argument, however others do not. One such study by Aldert Vrij of the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom in 2005 showed that there was no relationship between cooperation and guilt. He found that suspects who were shy tended to cooperate less despite their guilt or innocence. Therefore by Inbau’s logic would be falsely labeled as guilty. At issue here are many factors and ones that need to be considered before anyone can be labeled as a liar or otherwise. Deceivers are just as likely to be concerned with the impressions they make as non-deceivers so this is non-issue. However, the context does come across as a big factor.

For example, a criminal at a boarder crossing who is moving drugs with a suitcase would obviously be unwilling to cooperate by opening his bag so as to delay being caught, but so too might someone holding particularly private or personal items. Lest we not forget about a human rights activist who’s occupation involves protecting the freedoms of people. The activists will be just as unlikely to cooperate with law enforcement since his goals are best served by drawing attention to the injustices around him. What better way to make a point about global big brother than to become a victim yourself. Liars on the other hand might try harder to appear more honest by cooperating, or show that they have nothing to fear, and even appeal to discrimination and unjustness of the process. In the case of the honest suspect, they aren’t concerned about the impression they make on others, so can also appear less cooperative, even combative. Thus, cooperation, in and of itself, does not lead necessarily indicate deception, but on the surface, has some merit.

Dominance By Setting And Breaking Social Rules

by  • March 5, 2013 • 0 Comments

Rules are always created by, and then in turn, broken by dominant individuals! Dominant individuals are the rule makers, not the rule followers. It’s sad but true, that police officers enjoy greater luxuries than regular citizens. Just ask any policemen what they do if the get pulled over for speeding. Do you really think they get a ticket? I won’t get into absolutes here, but I do personally know two officers who have explained to me that a flash of the badge gets them off every time. I would expect this to be the norm, not the exception, but there is no empirical way to be certain.

This sort of logic all starts at home, as parents make and break their own rules routinely. Is it any surprise that whinny children have whinny parents? Even small children can readily pick-out these injustices, but since they are still highly dependent on their parents to feed, house and cloth them, they, put up only a small amount of resistance. As children reach their teenage years, these inconsistencies are tolerated less and less by them as they tend to set their own course. They are separating themselves from their parents and taking on their own dominance characteristics, naturally, controlling inconsistent parents see this as disrespect.

This isn’t unlike what happens when dominant people meet as adults. Dominant people will often interrupt others or speak over them, casually swear in the wrong company and generally act inappropriately without fear of consequence. Dominance can also take the form of belittling and criticizing others, and holding thoughts such as “I’m more important then you”. It can also include ridiculing others and their possessions, such as their cars or occupations.

Touching also has rules which can be broken in order to set others in their place. A pat on the back can be disingenuous when used in certain context, whereas a light punch on the shoulder can be uplifting to a buddy. Punching can be annoying if done repeatedly to exercise control. There is a pretty clear line between being dominant in a good way versus being belligerent.