Criminal versus HUMINT Interrogations: The Importance of Psychological Science to Improving Interrogative Practice

Abstract

The discovery of many cases of wrongful conviction in the criminal justice system involving admissions from innocent suspects has led psychologists to examine the factors contributing to false confessions. However, little systematic research has assessed the processes underlying Human Intelligence (HUMINT) interrogations relating to military and intelligence operations. The current article examines the similarities and differences between interrogations in criminal and HUMINT settings, and discusses the extent to which the current empirical literature can be applied to criminal and/or HUMINT interrogations. Finally, areas of future research are considered in light of the need for improving HUMINT interrogation.

Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review

“…While we have a robust understanding of factors that lead to false confessions in an interrogative context (see Kassin et al 2010), only a limited literature exists to assess the value of alternative methods of interrogation that might promote the diagnostic elicitation of confession evidence in the law enforcement context (see Meissner et al 2010a), or the elicitation of critical knowledge in a military or intelligence context (see Evans et al 2010;Hartwig et al 2014;Redlich 2007). The current analysis suggests that information-gathering approaches introduced by the United Kingdom and other countries (see Bull and Soukara 2010) can be equally effective in eliciting confessions when compared with accusatorial methods, but also have the advantage of eliciting more diagnostic information.…”

“…The effectiveness of military or intelligence interrogations has come under intense scrutiny as a result of the use of "enhanced" interrogation methods in Iraq and Afghanistan and heated debate over the use and efficacy of torture for eliciting information (see Evans et al 2010;Hartwig et al 2014;Redlich 2007). At the same time, police interview and interrogation methods in the criminal justice arena are being called into question because of the incidence of false confessions leading to wrongful conviction (see Kassin et al 2010;Redlich and Meissner 2009).…”

Eliciting intelligence from sources: The first scientific test of the Scharff technique

“…Although operational experience and the need for tailored information for national security interests have given rise to a wide array of tactics, techniques, and procedures within the HUMINT domain (e.g., Intelligence Science Board, ), these methods have rarely been subjected to scientific evaluation. On a more positive note, researchers and practitioners have begun to acknowledge this paucity of research and advocate for a more comprehensive agenda for the future (e.g., Brandon, ; Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, ). Consistent with such an agenda, this study presents the first scientific examination of the so‐called Scharff technique; a HUMINT gathering technique used by a famous German Luftwaffe interrogator during WWII (Toliver, ).…”

Eliciting Intelligence Using the Scharff‐Technique: Closing in on the Confirmation/Disconfirmation‐Tactic

“…Gathering intelligence from human sources is a critical aspect in the prevention of terrorism and the upholding of national security (Coulam, ; Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, ). Human sources can include, amongst others, informants, prisoners of war (POWs), detainees, suspects, or witnesses.…”