by
John E. Reid and
Associates
The act
of committing a crime is always associated with an emotional state. Most
criminals experience some level of shame, guilt or loss of self-esteem. Others
primarily experience a fear of being caught. A very few (the psychopath) will
experience excitement and thrill. Because shame, anxiety and fear are all
undesirable emotional states, the mind will attempt to reduce these negative
feelings by using defense mechanisms. A defense mechanism is a habitually
employed adjustive reaction designed to reduce unwanted feelings by distorting
or denying the truth.
We all use defense
mechanisms to cope with everyday guilt and anxiety. If I am late in writing the
monthly Web Tip, and consequently experienced guilt or shame, it would not sooth
those feelings by acknowledging that I procrastinated and was poorly organized.
To reduce my guilt and shame I may utilize any number of defense mechanisms. I
may blame my boss for assigning me too many other tasks which did not leave me
enough time to write the Web Tip. I may reduce guilt by contrasting what I did
to something much worse, e.g., it was only a couple days late, not a whole
month. I may forgive my tardiness by forming a belief that others engage in the
same behaviors as I do and, therefore, I am no different than anyone else. There
are many other possible defense mechanisms, but these illustrate the concept—
they all reduce unwanted feelings and are habitually employed. A person does not
consciously distort or deny the truth. The mind does it unconsciously.
During an interview,
when an investigator questions a guilty suspect about the crime he committed, it
can be safely assumed that the suspect has already employed one or more defense
mechanisms to help him cope with his crime. The innocent suspect, on the other
hand, has no need to reduce guilt or shame associated with the crime under
investigation. Therefore, when defense mechanisms are identified during an
interview, they should be associated with a guilty suspect. Consider the
following examples of responses to interview questions:
Q:
Have you ever just thought about forcing a woman to have sex with you?
A:
Well, sure. Every guy thinks about that but
that doesn't mean I'd follow through with it.
This illustrates the defense mechanism of
identification. With identification a subject forms a
false belief that others share his attitudes. A suspect guilty of committing
a crime would like to believe that he is no different than the majority of
the population. The above suspect could be asked, "What percentage of men do
you think, at some point in their life, have forced a woman to have sex with
them?" A guilty suspect often relates a very high percentage.
Q:
Why do you think some people do file a false insurance claim?
A:
Maybe to get back at the insurance company
for charging such high premiums.
This response suggests the defense mechanism of
projection. It can be
defined as placing blame away from ourselves and onto someone or something
else. The homicide suspect may blame the victim for getting him angry; a
burglar may blame an accomplice for talking him into breaking into the home;
a robber may blame his addiction to drugs for causing him to have to steal
money. Because projection is such a common defense mechanism, the
investigator should actively seek information during an interview to help
identify who or what the guilty suspect may have blamed for his crime.
Q:
What do you think should happen to the
person who took this $2000?
A:
Well, I definitely think that there should
be disciplinary action but I don't think they should go so far as to have
the person put in jail unless it was for a very large amount.
When a suspect contrasts his crime to something much worse he is using the
defense mechanism of
minimization. We all
experience some level of relief knowing that something bad could have been
much worse. In the guilty suspect's mind, a rape or robbery was not that bad
because the victim was not killed. Drug dealers minimize their crime by
contrasting the relatively minor drugs they sell to something much harder
like heroine. A computer hacker may minimize his crime by contrasting the
mere disruption of a commercial web site to breaking into a national
security computer and selling information to the highest bidder.
Q:
Did you start that fire?
A:
No, but I was smoking in the area where the
fire started and I have this strange feeling that maybe my cigarette may
have accidentally started the fire.
This is a possible example of
rationalization
wherein a person re-describes the intentions behind his act. Whenever,
during an interview, a suspect accepts possible responsibility for the crime
in a way that removes criminal intent, rationalization should be suspected.
Actual interview examples we have heard from suspects who later confessed
include being the person who may have unknowingly thrown away a missing
money from an evidence room, a suspect who said he possibly had inadvertent
contact with a step-daughter's bare breast when tucking her into bed and a
suspect in a hit and run accident who told us he had a vague recollection of
maybe hitting something with his car. In each of these cases the guilty
suspect reduced considerable guilt associated with his or her crime by
accepting possible physical (but not legal) responsibility for it.
Obviously, there are cases in which a suspect may be telling the truth when
acknowledging that an act occurred accidentally or inadvertently. A
guideline to consider is that the deceptive subject often introduces his
responsibility for the crime as a mere possibility. The guilty suspect
generally does not come out and say, "It must have been my cigarette that
started that fire because it started right where I was smoking and it
couldn't have been anything else."
Q:
How do you feel about being interviewed
concerning this forged check?
A:
I feel like I'm being framed for this thing.
I don't know why you're talking to me about this. It could have been
anybody. Why would I need to forge someone's check when I have my own
checking account — tell me that?
The defense mechanism involved in this response is
displacement. An
emotional tirade, especially when it comes out of nowhere and is not
accompanied with supporting nonverbal behaviors, is often emanating from a
deceptive suspect. A person who feels guilt or loss of esteem because of
something he or she did may reduce that feeling by displacing it with anger
directed toward the interviewer. Anger is a much easier emotion for the
suspect to deal with than guilt because anger is directed away from the
suspect toward someone or something else. Guilt or shame, on the other hand,
are directed inward and the best way to deal with them is to acknowledge the
truth — something most suspects do not want to do.
In summary, almost
every suspect who has committed a crime will reduce unwanted feelings associated
with their crime through the use of defense mechanisms. On the other hand, a
suspect innocent of committing a crime has no need to reduce feelings of guilt,
anxiety, shame or fear of being caught. Therefore, when a suspect's response to
an interview question reveals the use of a defense mechanism, it supports the
opinion of deception. As with any behavior symptom, it is important to evaluate
the totality of the subject's behaviors throughout the entire interview to look
for trends and patterns before a final opinion of truth or deception can be
rendered with confidence.
by Andrew G. Hawkes
http://www.highwaydruginterdiction.com
You simply cannot
ignore it. Look at the headlines. From New York, to Chicago, Utah and down to
Texas, police suicides and police committing violent crimes moments or hours
before they take their own lives or commit suicide by cop is happening in record
numbers.
Why? I’m not a
doctor, only a street-hardened cop, but I’ll be glad to give you my opinion. As
officers we see and deal with everyone else’s problems on a daily basis. Over
the years those little stresses build up. We are humans too. We have our own
personal problems and struggles. Sometimes it’s hard to have you head in the
right place on a domestic disturbance or a wreck when you’re dealing with
finding out you wife is leaving you or your teenager just got arrested. It’s
called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, we’ve all heard about it, most of us have
it to some degree.
I’m sick and tired
of seeing good cops that needed help not get any. We as police officers are
afraid to tell anyone we are having problems and need someone to be here for
us. We are afraid that we will lose the one thing that means everything to us,
our JOB. And the reality of it is that’s what usually happens. “Officer Smith
has a drinking problem, so let’s fire him or put him behind a desk.”
The violent crimes
that we see from “good cops gone bad” is a statement. It’s a statement from
these once trusted law enforcement professionals that says, “I needed help, I
helped others my whole life, but no one would help me, and now everyone is going
to pay for it”.
So, listen up. If
you are someone that can help, Psychologists, Doctors, State and Federal
Legislatures, Police Chiefs, and Police Associations: I AM CALLIN YOU OUT.
“We are the
police; we help people, now someone help US!”
Most cops
would rather die than tell someone they need help. They think it is a sign of
weakness. But I submit to you that it is not. It is a sign of being human, and
it is a sign of dealing with personal problems and having everyone else’s
problems stacked on top of those personal problems. That’s why you see
alcoholism running rampant in law enforcement. We need someone to be there for
us, but we don’t want anyone to know we need them. So we rely on our friends
“Jack” and “Bud” to help us.
If you are a cop,
and you need someone to lean on, go to your best buddy, go to your priest or
preacher, go to a mentor, hell, call you mom, but talk to someone. We are all
brothers and sisters in blue. You’d be surprised at how much one of us is
willing to help you, not laugh at you. We’ve all been there. I’d give the
shirt off of my back to help a fellow officer if that is all I know to do.
Don’t become a
statistic. It’s going to be ok, really. You are a good cop, talk to someone so
that you stay that way. You’re brothers and sisters in blue are waiting for you
to tell them.
God speed to you
and yours.
Andrew G. Hawkes
http://www.highwaydruginterdiction.com/
|
by Lee Steitz
While reviewing
course evaluations for an in-house training class, I came across
this comment, “The instructors in this class were much better
than the ones who taught last year.” That’s it, nothing more. No
explanation as to how the current instructors were better, no
details about flow, learning activities or teaching styles.
Reading feedback such as this made me reflect not only on how
students perceive those who teach, but also how students who
double as trainers perceive their peers in action.
Those who serve
collaterally as trainers have a unique responsibility when
filling the role of a student. Officers trained as instructors
possess special skills and knowledge providing a heightened
awareness of a peer instructor’s proficiency. These individuals
are in the ideal position to make training better. Who better to
offer useful feedback to fellow instructors after being on the
receiving end f training?
Write about the
well-designed learning activity; point out potential hazards or
logistical problems with tactical exercises; offer observations
about annoying external distractions; or, submit positive
remarks about how the instructor successfully facilitated a
difficult training module. In doing so, your observations serve
as valuable feedback to a fellow instructor. Like all trainers,
I want to know when a class goes well; however, I also seek
improvement with each course taught. Keeping your instructor
skills sharp, updating content, and making training
student-centered increases the likelihood of personal progress.
Receiving candid, accurate evaluations from peer instructors are
another key component of performance assessment.
The next time you’re
attending training, take a few extra moments to provide useful
instructor evaluation comments. Professional law enforcement
trainers will thank you and future students will reap the
benefit.
just completed.
Rather than submitting innocuous comments like “Great Class!” or
“Good Job,” why not give some meaningful, practical feedback?
http://www.ileeta.org/
— ILEETA member Lee Steitz is a Lieutenant with the Oceanside,
California P. D., and has been a police officer for over 26
years. Email Lee at leesteitz@cox.net
|
< <
jump to the policetraining.net home page
