◆ SpookStack

5 Ant NNR a Re oe wrong—in the view of most informe and reasonable observers. In the hope ot assessing the validity of these polar views, and thus of arriving at a more realistic appraisal of the problem, rrayvroy has convened this panel of well-known au- thoritics on law enforcement—represent- ing every shade of opinion—for a discussion of the issues involved. Gentle- men, let's begin by asking whether you feel that the controversial Supreme Court decisions we've cited protect the rights of the individual or “coddle the crim- inal.” as the police allege. INBAU: In my opinion, these decisions have had a crippling effect on law enforcement. Because of the McNabb- Mallory and Escobedo rulings, police are, for all practical purposes, prevented from interrogating suspects in private. It’s usually useless to interrogate a sus- pect with his attorney present; any law- yer worth his salt is going to tell his client to shut his mouth and keep it shut. Some judges -are unrealistic; they don’t realize that most crimes are solved not by fancy detective work from clues left behind by the criminal. but rather by skillful interrogation behind closed doors. TURNER: I think it’s often the police de- partments, not the judges, who are un- realistic. Once they get a confession, they think they have a case all locked up, and this leads to sloppy corrobora- tive detective work. Then, when they go to court and have their case shot full of holes, they wail that the court is coddling the criminal. BELLI: Jf any D. A.s and police chiefs are reading this, I'd like to straighten them out on a couple of basic misapprehen- sions before we go any further. First of all. if we're coddling anyone, we're coddling the accused, not the criminal. Scoomtlyy “coddling” fs hardly the word to describe the court’s and the counsel's eflort to guarantee the inalienable rights outlined in our Constitution to every citizen, PEMBERTON: I agree. The Supreme Court's devotion to our basic ‘constitu. tional rights ist't pampering criminals: is simply being true to ourselves: and gur democratic heritage. LEIGHTON: T agree. Rut if I may return to Professor Inban’s implication that re- strictions on interrogation are leading to an increase in crime. 1 do not know of a single statistical proof that these recent decisions have hampercd police. Professor ‘Inbau says that interrogation is an indis- peusable part of police work. but I am told that FBI police-academy instructors emphasize just the opposite view. They sist that any intelligent investigator cn_usually reconstruct the crime by clues found ar the scene. Even when there are few clues, however, there’s no ( had several burglaries totaling $150,000 worth of diamond-cutting tools. A. bril- fiant police official advertised in all the papers: “Wanted: diamond-cutting tools. Buyer will pay top price.” Who should show up with a greedy grin but the burglar’s fence: INBAU: Certainly there is an occasional opportunity for that kind of police work. But realty is usually different. Take the hypothetical case of a woman raped in a dark alley. All she can report is that her assailant was a white man around 5 feet, 8 inches tall, wearing a blue shirt and dark trousers. The victim was struck on the head and bled profuse- ly. Now, suppose a gas-station attendant reports that a certain white man about 5 feet, 9 inches tall, wearing a blue shirt, borrowed a key to the men’s room that same night to wash what appeared to be blood from his hands. Of course, that doesn’t mean that this parucular man committed the crime. No sensible judge or jury would convict on such feeble evidence, and the police would not want them to; but the only way to find out if this fellow is guilty—or innocent, for that matter—is to question him. This is the way most crimes are solved. But I want it clearly understood that the police should not be permitted any rough stuff, or to use any interrogation tactics or techniques that are apt to make an in- nocent man confess. LEIGHTON: Now we're getting to the heart of the matter: Just what is “rough staff"? Police coercion need not be physical; psychological coercion can be just as punishing and persuasive. Bett: And reprehensible. Perhaps the rubber hose is not so standard a piece of police equipment as it once was, but today there are far more sophisticated methgds of torture in daily use. \Ve-all concede that a man must not be forced by rack, wheel or thumbscrew to confess a guilt tha isn't true. But I see little difference between whipping a man and brainwashing him, or scaring him half to death. A’ dishonest interrogator, for example, can isakite al stispect who is ignorant of his rights and unprotected by an attorney, aad murmur sympathetically to him, “Too «bad you can't be home taking care of your family. We think your wife is going to be all right, but she’s coughing preity bad. Of course, the doc. tor is doing all he can, but she’s calling for you. Now, if you'll just tell us all about it, you can be out on bail in an hour to take éare of her.” Well, that poor fellow will say just about anything to get out and look after his wife. cook: Another equally effective and in- Sidious technique is to subject the sus- pect to hours and hours of questioning Dy relive af intarreacstare Tlesalle 4 » dd. That last_bruez who was so rough oi: you is a real heel and I heartily dis- approve of his methods. But you and I are friends. We can do business. Have a cigarette and tell me all about it.” Essen. tially, that’s the technique the Chinese Reds used in Korea to brainwash prison- crs. Today it’s a standard technique ol virtually all = American investigative agencics. Professor Inbau's own textbook | on interrogative techniques recommends this very use of alternate interrogators with different personalities and ap- proaches. Finally, a suspect gets tired: he's half-dead for lack of sleep: his brain ‘and will are numbed from grappling with his emotional reaction to the two different personalities, and he'll say any- thing the police want him to say. During the hours of questioning. the police have drummed into him all the details he needs to make an claborate confession as though from his firsthand knowledge as the guilty man. They have repeatedly asked, for instance, “Weren't you at First Avenue and Sixth Street at 3:30 ac. with a switchblade in your pocket?” That makes it easy for him to confess having been exactly where the police want him at the time they want him there. PLAYBOY: Are you saying that the police deliberately feed suspects these details in order to extort false confessions? COOK: Not deliberately, no. But there is a very peculiar cop psychology. When a cop arrests a suspect, he feels he's solved the case: Yo be arrested is to be guilty. It’s a sincere fecling for the cop, an in- evitable development of his way of life. All of us would suffer from the same prej- udice if we were doing his dificult job. He's carried away by his theory of how the crime was committed, by his own brilliance in solving it, and he’s certain the only remaining problem is to squeeze the truth out of the guy he’s already chosen as the guilty man. LEIGHTON: I think you may be a bit guilty yourscl[—of oversimplification. You're quite right, though, when you say that the tough-guy-nice-guy system has become a suindard police interrogation procedure —almost as common as the deplorable practice of uaremiting imervogation over inordinately prolonged periods, Fif- tecn, even thirty hours of nonstop ques- Gioning is by no means unheard of, INBAU: Be that as it may. TF think chat the limits of interrogation should) remain clastic. Cases differ. Suppose a SUSpECt says he was with Joe so-and-so at the time of the crime. The police should be allowed to hold him till they can urack down and question Joe and check the alibi. That may take an hour, four hours, who knows? If Joe, a responsible citizen, says the suspect was indeed with him, the police turn the suspect loose. If Joe says eee Me . .- eo |