Shocking the Conscience: Public Responses to Police Use of the “Mr. Big” Technique

An exploration of laypeople’s perceptions of confession evidence and interrogation tactics.

“…They found that outcomefocused and confession-oriented techniques (tactics where the goal is to elicit a confession such as isolating a suspect and minimization; Davis & O'Donohue, 2004) were viewed as less acceptable by the public than ethics-focused, information gathering, or strategic interviewing techniques (tactics where the goal is to obtain information and detect deception such as the PEACE model and the Strategic Use of Evidence; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2005;Meissner, Redlich, Bhatt, & Brandon, 2012;Milne & Bull, 1999). Connors, Archibald, Smith, and Patry (2017) did begin to investigate what shocks the conscience of the public directly, though they were concerned specifically with aspects of Canada's "Mr. Big" technique. In this technique, undercover officers attempt to build a close relationship with a suspect and convince them to join a gang (criminal organisation).…”

“…In this technique, undercover officers attempt to build a close relationship with a suspect and convince them to join a gang (criminal organisation). Once sufficient trust is built, the undercover officers convince the suspect that to continue their membership within the organisation, the suspect must reveal information about their past criminal history; with the goal of eliciting a confession to the index offense (Connors et al, 2017). Using a predominantly undergraduate student sample, seven vignettes based on actual cases were presented.…”

“…However, it does not appear that an assessment of what the Canadian public actually finds shocking has been conducted. Although Connors et al (2017) tested how seven Mr. Big investigations shocked the conscience of undergraduate participants, it is currently unknown whether or not there are general police interrogation tactics that shock the conscience of the public, if reactions are entirely case specific, or if nonstudent participants would respond similarly. Moreover, it is unclear (a) how judges determine the attitudes of the community, and (b) whether the corresponding decisions made by judges reflect the true opinion of the public.…”

“…Connors, Archibald, Smith, and Patry (2017) did begin to investigate what shocks the conscience of the public directly, though they were concerned specifically with aspects of Canada’s “Mr. Big” technique.…”

“…Although the general principle of interest is referred to as shocking the conscience, it is not simply about whether people are surprised, shocked, or startled; at its core, this principle is about fairness, the ethical treatment of human beings, and upholding due process (Carson, 1994; Her Majesty the Queen v. Oickle , 2000). Discussions with colleagues, including Connors (from Connors et al, 2017), revealed numerous issues with using the word “shocking” as a dependent measure, as it could be unclear if participants were rating their level of moral outrage or their level of surprise or the degree to which their expectations were not confirmed (etc.). Thus, rather than asking participants whether they were shocked—which could be tapping into many things unrelated to the shock the conscience principle—we asked participants if the tactics were appropriate or not, in the context of a police interrogation.…”