INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
By: James Orlando, Associate Attorney
OLR Researach
This report provides a concise overview of (1) the Reid method of interrogation, (2) critiques of the Reid method, and (3) alternative interrogation techniques.
SUMMARY
The Reid method is a system of interviewing and interrogation widely used by police departments in the United States. The term “The Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation” is a registered trademark of John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. According to the company’s website, over 500,000 law enforcement and security professionals have attended the company’s interview and interrogation training programs since they were first offered in 1974.
Some critics contend that the Reid Technique is premised on certain assumptions about human behavior that are not supported by empirical evidence, and that the technique may lead to false confessions. The company contends that critics mischaracterize the Reid Technique and that false confessions are caused by interrogators applying inappropriate methods not endorsed by the company.
Two alternative interrogation techniques are (1) Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate (PEACE), a less confrontational method used in England, and (2) the Kinesic Interview, a method that focuses on recognizing deception.
REID TECHNIQUE
The Reid Technique involves three components – factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation. Following is a brief summary of these components; more information is available on the company’s website.
Factual Analysis
The Reid website describes factual analysis as; “an inductive approach where each individual suspect is evaluated with respect to specific observations relating to the crime. Consequently, factual analysis relies not only on crime scene analysis, but also on information learned about each suspect. . . . Applying factual analysis . . . results in establishing an estimate of a particular suspect’s probable guilt or innocence based on such things as the suspect’s bio-social status (gender, race, occupation, marital status, etc.), opportunity and access to commit the crime, their behavior before and after the crime, their motivations and propensity to commit the crime, and evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence.”
This factual analysis is also intended to “identify characteristics about the suspect and the crime which will be helpful during an interrogation of the suspect believed to be guilty [,]” such as motive or the suspect’s personality type.
Behavior Analysis Interview
The Reid website describes the Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI) as a non-accusatory question and answer session, involving both standard investigative questions and “structured ‘behavior provoking’ questions to elicit behavior symptoms of truth or deception from the person being interviewed.”
The investigator first asks background questions, to establish personal information about the suspect and allow the investigator to evaluate the suspect’s “normal” verbal and nonverbal behavior. The investigator then asks “behavior-provoking” questions intended “to elicit different verbal and nonverbal responses from truthful and deceptive suspects.” The investigator will also ask some investigative questions during this stage. The Reid website states that the BAI:
“provides objective criteria to render an opinion about the suspect’s truthfulness through evaluating responses to the behavior-provoking and investigative questions. In addition, the BAI facilitates the eventual interrogation of guilty suspects . . . by establishing a working rapport with the suspect during the non-accusatory BAI, and developing insight about the suspect and his crime to facilitate the formulation of an interrogation strategy.”
Interrogation
The Reid website states that an interrogation “should only occur when the investigator is reasonably certain of the suspect’s involvement in the issue under investigation.” There are nine steps to the Reid interrogation technique, briefly described below.
- The positive confrontation. The investigator tells the suspect that the evidence demonstrates the person’s guilt. If the person’s guilt seems clear to the investigator, the statement should be unequivocal.
- Theme development. The investigator then presents a moral justification (theme) for the offense, such as placing the moral blame on someone else or outside circumstances. The investigator presents the theme in a monologue and in sympathetic manner.
- Handling denials. When the suspect asks for permission to speak at this stage (likely to deny the accusations), the investigator should discourage allowing the suspect to do so. The Reid website asserts that innocent suspects are less likely to ask for permission and more likely to “promptly and unequivocally” deny the accusation. The website states that “[i]t is very rare for an innocent suspect to move past this denial state.”
- Overcoming objections. When attempts at denial do not succeed, a guilty suspect often makes objections to support a claim of innocence (e.g., I would never do that because I love my job.) The investigator should generally accept these objections as if they were truthful, rather than arguing with the suspect, and use the objections to further develop the theme.
- Procurement and retention of suspect’s attention. The investigator must procure the suspect’s attention so that the suspect focuses on the investigator’s theme rather than on punishment. One way the investigator can do this is to close the physical distance between himself or herself and the suspect. The investigator should also “channel the theme down to the probable alternative components.”
- Handling the suspect’s passive mood. The investigator “should intensify the theme presentation and concentrate on the central reasons he [or she] is offering as psychological justification . . . [and] continue to display an understanding and sympathetic demeanor in urging the suspect to tell the truth.”
- Presenting an alternative question. The investigator should present two choices, assuming the suspect’s guilt and developed as a “logical extension from the theme,” with one alternative offering a better justification for the crime (e.g., “Did you plan this thing out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?”). The investigator may follow the question with a supporting statement “which encourages the suspect to choose the more understandable side of the alternative.”
- Having the suspect orally relate various details of the offense. After the suspect accepts one side of the alternative (thus admitting guilt), the investigator should immediately respond with a statement of reinforcement acknowledging that admission. The investigator then seeks to obtain a brief oral review of the basic events, before asking more detailed questions.
- Converting an oral confession to a written confession. The investigator must convert the oral confession into a written or recorded confession. The website provides some guidelines, such as repeating Miranda warnings, avoiding leading questions, and using the suspect’s own language.
CRITIQUES OF REID TECHNIQUE
There has been considerable academic research on various aspects of police interrogation, including whether interrogation methods can lead to false confessions. Below, we briefly describe some criticisms of the Reid Technique, as well as responses to such criticisms by Reid and Associates, Inc. For a more detailed summary of criticisms of the Reid Technique, see this article from Criminal Law Quarterly, a Canadian journal. For more information on the company’s response to such criticisms, see this document from Reid’s website.
In the “Sources and Other Information” section of this report, we provide links to some studies and commentary on these issues. This report does not attempt to survey the vast range of research on the relationship between interrogation techniques and false confessions. If you would like more information about particular aspects of this issue, please let us know.
Discerning truth or deception
One aspect of the Reid approach is to train investigators to discern when a suspect is lying (e.g., by analyzing nonverbal behavior during the initial interview). Critics question whether training can actually lead investigators to do so, and point to various studies concerning the ability to discern truth from lying. For example, one frequent critic of the Reid Technique, law professor Richard Leo, argues that extensive social science research has demonstrated:
that people are poor at making accurate judgments of truth and deception in general, that the behavior cues police rely on in particular are not diagnostic of deception, and that investigators cannot distinguish truthful from false denials of guilt at rates significantly greater than chance, but instead routinely make confidently held yet erroneous judgments (Leo 2013, 203).
Reid and Associates, Inc. argues that many such studies have limited applicability to police interrogations. For example, the studies may have (1) involved college students in laboratory settings, with students having low motivation to be believed if innocent or avoid detection if lying, or (2) been conducted by people not trained to interview criminal suspects. The company also points to other studies supporting the contention that training can increase the ability of police to detect when suspects are lying.
False confessions
Critics argue that various features of the Reid interrogation method may lead certain innocent suspects to confess. For example, one critique argues that “the guilt-presumptive nature” of the Reid method “creates a slippery slope for innocent suspects because it may set in motion a sequence of reciprocal observations and reactions between the suspect and interrogator that serve to confirm the interrogator’s belief in the suspect’s guilt” (Moore and Fitzsimmons, 513). According to some critics of the Reid Technique, aspects of Reid-style interrogation that may lead to false confessions include (1) misclassification (the police attributing deception to truthful suspects); (2) coercion (including psychological manipulation); and (3) contamination (such as when police present non-public information to a suspect, and the suspect incorporates that information in his or her confession) (Gudjonsson 2012, 695, discussing Leo and Drizin among other studies).
Reid and Associates, Inc. disputes the contention that their methods lead to false confessions. They argue that:
False confessions are not caused by the application of the Reid Technique . . . [but instead] are usually caused by interrogators engaging in improper behavior that is outside of the parameters of the Reid Technique . . . such as threatening inevitable consequences; making a promise of leniency in return for the confession; denying a subject their rights; conducting an excessively long interrogation; etc.
The company also cites court cases upholding their methods or denying the admission of expert testimony that would link those methods to false confessions (e.g., U.S. v. Jacques, 784 F.Supp.2d 59, D. Mass. (2011)).
PEACE METHOD
In England, police generally use a less confrontational interview and interrogation method than is used in the United States. The method is called Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate (PEACE). Under the PEACE method, investigators allow a suspect to tell his or her story without interruption, before presenting the suspect with any inconsistencies or contradictions between the story and other evidence. Investigators are prohibited from deceiving suspects during an interview (Meissner et al., 11).
The following information on the steps to the PEACE method is drawn from Authorised Professional Practice (APP), a national body of guidance on policing in the United Kingdom. For more detailed information, see their website.
- Preparation and Planning. Interviewers should create a written interview plan, focusing on issues such as the objectives of the interview and the order of interviews. Among other things, the plan should include the time a suspect has been in custody, the topics to be covered, and points necessary to prove the offense or provide a defense. Interviewers should consider characteristics of the interviewee that could be relevant to the plan (e.g., cultural background could affect how someone prefers to be addressed). Interviewers may need to consider practical arrangements, such as visiting the scene or the location of the interview.
- Engage and Explain. The interviewers should engage the individual, including using active listening to establish a rapport with him or her. The interviewers should explain the reasons for the interview and its objectives. They should also explain routines and expectations of the process (e.g., explaining that the interviewers will take notes). Interviewers should encourage the individual to state anything they believe is relevant.
- Account. The interviewers should use appropriate questions and active listening to obtain the interviewee’s account of events. Questions should be short and free of jargon, and can help to clarify and expand the account. Multi-part questions should generally be avoided due to possible confusion, and leading questions should be used only as a last resort.
- Closure. This stage should be planned to avoid an abrupt end to the interview. Among other things, the interviewers should summarize the person’s account of events, allowing the person to make clarifications and ask questions.
- Evaluate. The interviewers should evaluate the interview to (a) assess how the interviewee’s account fits with the investigation as a whole, (b) determine if further action is needed, and (c) reflect on their performance.
KINESIC INTERVIEW
The Kinesic Interview method involves analyzing a person’s behavior to assess deception. The method has some similarities to the Reid Technique.
Kinesics is the study of nonverbal communication. One author, Stan B. Walters, describes two phases to this process: the “Practical Kinesic Analysis Phase” and the “Practical Kinesic Interrogation Phase.”
During the analysis phase, the interviewer uses several techniques to observe and analyze the subject’s behavior “to determine the subject’s truthful and deceptive behaviors or at least to determine those areas most sensitive to the subject and, therefore, in need of further attention through verbal inquiry” (Walters 3). Walters describes four fundamental stages of the interview: (1) orientation, (2) narration, (3) cross-examination, and (4) resolution (Id. at 25-29).
The investigator uses information gathered during the first phase to tailor interrogation for the specific subject. Walters describes the interrogator’s task of “breaking the cycle of deception” during the interrogation; this includes confronting the suspect’s negative-response emotional states (Id. at 209). Walters outlines different interrogation strategies for different personality types.
Walters describes over 30 practical kinesic principles to guide investigators in this process. The “first and most important” such principle is that “No single kinesic behavior, verbal or nonverbal, proves a person is truthful or deceptive” (Id. at 10). The other principles include both general statements of human behavior (people are better able to control verbal than nonverbal kinesic signals) and statements specifically focused on interview or interrogation techniques (to attack a denial, the investigator should review the real or circumstantial evidence with the subject every 3 to 5 minutes).
SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- College of Policing, Authorised Professional Practice, Investigation: Investigative Interviewing, available at http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework.
- Gudjonsson, Gisli H. False Confessions and Correcting Injustices. 46 New Eng. L. Rev. 689 (Summer 2012).
- Gudjonsson, Gisli H. The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook (Wiley 2003).
- Leo, Richard A. Why Interrogation Contamination Occurs. 11 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 193 (Fall 2013).
- Leo, Richard A. and Steven A. Drizin. The Three Errors: Pathways to False Confession and Wrongful Conviction, in Police Interrogations and False Confessions: Current Research, Practice and Policy Recommendations (G. Daniel Lassiter & Christian A. Meissner eds., 2010).
- Meissner, Christian A. et al. Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews (2012:2013), The Campbell Collaboration, available at www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/2249/.
- Moore, Timothy E. and C. Lindsay Fitzsimmons. Justice Imperiled: False Confessions and the Reid Technique. 57 Crim. Law Quarterly 509 (2011). available at http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/includes/pdf/CLQ-2.pdf.
- O’Sullivan, M. et al. Police Lie Detection Accuracy: The Effect of Lie Scenario. 33 Law & Hum. Behav. 530 (2009).
- John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. website: http://www.reid.com/.
- Starr, Douglas. Do police interrogation techniques produce false confessions? The New Yorker (Dec. 9, 2013).
- Walters, Stan B. Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation, Second Edition. (CRC Press, 2003).
Research on the PEACE Technique
Fraud and PEACE: Investigative interviewing and fraud investigation.
Shawyer, Andie, et.al.
Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol 9(2), Apr, 2007. pp. 102-117.
Abstract:
The adaptation and application of the ‘PEACE’ framework for investigative interviewing in public sector counter-fraud was intended to create a more professional body of trained counter-fraud interviewers and a more standardized interview model. This paper discusses the importance of interviewing in the investigation process, with specific reference to fraud. Specifically, it will examine the Department for Work and Pensions public sector agency. It examines how successfully the PEACE model can fit into fraud investigative interviewing, and investigates the attitudes and perceptions of fraud investigators to the PEACE framework as applied to the fraud interview. The paper refers to research indicating that PEACE Is not being consistently applied in all interviews, and that some elements of the model might work better than others in relation to fraud interviews. Further, the paper highlights the mixed reaction of investigators to using the model, and leads to the proposition that perhaps the model needs to be adapted to ‘fit’ fraud interviews.
Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing practices in the public sector.
Walsh, David W. and Milne, Rebecca.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol 13(1), Feb, 2008. pp. 39-57.
Abstract:
Purpose. This study examined the interviewing ability of benefit fraud investigators, specifically examining the effects of training in the PEACE model. This model, preferred by the British police, is a mnemonic for the interview process: planning and preparation, engage and explanation, account, closure, and evaluation. Methods. An analysis was undertaken of 99 audiotapes of real-life interviews with benefit fraud suspects, comparing performance levels between trained and untrained investigators, using an assessment scale consisting of 56 behavioural and procedural elements adapted from Clarke and Milne (2001). Results. Some improvements were found in performance amongst the trained investigators notably with good practices being seen in the effective use of ‘open’ questions which facilitated increased information from suspects, in addition to a comprehensive fulfilment of the necessary legal requirements. Additionally, only rare occurrences were found of any unethical practices. However, the study also found little evidence of planning which was thought to affect interview content particularly in relation to their structure and flexibility. Concerns were also found with (i) shortfalls in rapport building, (ii) insufficient coverage of the points that required proving, (iii) failures to completely explore the suspect’s motive and (iv) the lack of summarizing during the interview. Conclusions. The research found some performance improvement after interview training but this was insufficient to suggest a general trend towards increased professionalism. A need for further training was identified, both in the PEACE model and in other appropriate interviewing skills.
Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions.
Kassin, Saul M., et.al.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol 15(1), Feb, 2010. pp. 39-55.
Abstract:
Crime suspects in the USA are typically questioned in a two-step process aimed, first, at behavioural lie detection during a pre-interrogation interview, followed by the elicitation of a confession during the interrogation itself (in Great Britain, the practice of investigative interviewing does not make this sharp distinction). Research conducted on the first step shows that police investigators often target innocent people for interrogation because of erroneous but confident judgments of deception. Research on the second step shows that innocent people are sometimes induced to confess to crimes they did not commit as a function of certain dispositional vulnerabilities or the use of overly persuasive interrogation tactics. Citing recent studies, this paper proposes that laboratory paradigms be used to help build more diagnostic models of interrogation. Substantively, we suggest that the British PEACE approach to investigative interviewing may provide a potentially effective alternative to the classic American interrogation. As a matter of policy, we suggest that the videotaping of entire interrogations from a balanced camera perspective is necessary to improve the fact finding accuracy of judges and juries who must evaluate confession evidence in court.
What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes.
Walsh, Dave and Bull, Ray.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol 15(2), Sep, 2010. pp. 305-321.
Abstract:
Purpose: The present study examines whether interviewing in a manner that is compatible with a recommended model of interviewing (called the ‘PEACE’ model) impacts on outcomes of the interviews examined in contrast to prior studies which have usually been concerned whether the conducted interviews were fair and not coercive or whether there had been positive effects of training upon subsequent interview performance.
Methods: This study, examining in detail 142 actual suspect interviews, is set in the barely researched area of social security benefit fraud, reflecting current trends in Britain concerning increasing numbers of interviews with suspects undertaken by public sector organizations and the pluralization of policing.
Results: It was found that good interviewing in each of the recommended stages that make up the PEACE model generally led to better interviews, indicating the importance that each stage contributes to overall interview quality. Further, the quality of interviews was compared against a range of interview outcomes and it was found that skilled PEACE interviewing was associated with the securing of full accounts, including confessions.
Conclusion: Given the few examples of skilled interviewing found in the study it is argued that further training of investigators is necessary to improve both interviewing performance and organizational outcomes.
Interviewing suspects of crime: The impact of peace training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor.
Clarke, Colin, et.al.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol 8(2), Jun, 2011. pp. 149-162.
Abstract:
In 1992, the police service of England and Wales adopted PEACE as a framework for interviewing suspects. This study was to evaluate the impact of PEACE interview training, workplace supervision and the presence of a legal advisor on the performance of police officers’ interviewing suspects. One hundred seventy-four real-life interviews with suspects were obtained from six police forces in England and Wales. Officers trained and untrained in PEACE, and from police forces that did or did not have an interview supervision policy conducted the interviews. Interviews in this sample were generally of average standard. Whilst PEACE-trained officers conducted longer interviews, there were no other statistical differences dependent on training. Nor were there any statistical differences dependent on the presence of a legal advisor. A workplace supervision policy was found to be related to performance, particularly during the engage and explain phases of the interview. Supervision also appeared to provide some safeguards for suspects who did not have a legal advisor. Because the performance of PEACE-trained officers did not differ from those who had not received this training, further improvement in training is needed, especially regarding a number of communication skills. It is argued that such improvement would be facilitated by a more consistent approach to interviewer training and to the effective supervision of interviews.
How do interviewers attempt to overcome suspects’ denials?
Walsh, Dave and Bull, Ray.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol 19(2), Apr, 2012. pp. 151-168.
Abstract:
Whilst earlier studies of interviews with suspects have tended to focus upon the causes of false confessions, few have considered how to overcome false denials and obtain true confessions. The present study of 85 interviews with suspects of benefit fraud examined interviewer skill levels of tactics and attitudes (and the extent of their usage and presence) along with measuring any associated movement made towards confession. The study also examined whether or not the weight of evidence, found in prior studies to be a key factor in confessions, played a role when suspects made admissions to wrongdoing. It was found that confessions more likely occurred when skilful interviewer displays of certain tactics and attitudes were increasingly demonstrated, many of which are recommended by the PEACE interviewing framework, developed in England and Wales, whereas the weight of evidence alone was not an influential factor.
PEACE in fraud interviews: Assumptions and detection of guilt and the impact on interviewer behaviour.
Shawyer, Andrea and Milne, Rebecca.
Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol 17(1), Feb, 2015. pp. 30-46.
Abstract:
A survey was conducted in the United Kingdom to identify the beliefs and attitudes of Department for Work and Pensions and police fraud investigators towards the PEACE model of interviewing with particular focus on assumptions of guilt, interviewer characteristics and detecting deception. There was support for the usefulness of the PEACE model for fraud interviews, although assumptions of guilt before these interviews were widespread. This finding was coupled with stereotypical beliefs about cues to deception, despite a general view that open mindedness and good listening skills were key features of a good interviewer. It was concluded that the way in which fraud investigations are carried out challenges the expectation that the interviewer will not assume guilt before the interview but does not necessarily challenge the expectation that the interviewer will have an open-minded and non-judgemental attitude. Beliefs about cues to deception should be challenged and substituted for more reliable indicators.
How intuitive is PEACE? Newly recruited police officers’ plans, interviews and self-evaluations.
Scott, Adrian J., et.al.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol 22(3), May, 2015. pp. 355-367.
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to examine the spontaneous interviewing skills of 43 newly recruited police officers (i.e., untrained recruits) with reference to the five stages of the internationally adopted PEACE model of interviewing (Preparation and planning; Engage and explain; Account, clarification and challenge [Account]; Closure; and Evaluation). University students acted as witnesses and watched a short video of a mock assault before being individually interviewed by one of the recruits. The recruits’ resulting plans, interviews and self-evaluations were then coded to determine how closely they adhered to the PEACE model. The recruits focused on the Account stage in their plans and interviews with little attention given to the Engage and explain or Closure stages of the model. In self-evaluations of their interviews, the recruits recognised the need to further develop aspects of the Engage and explain and Closure stages. These new findings can be used to ensure interview training is presented at a suitable level and targets the least intuitive aspects of the interview process.
Investigative practice.
Oxburgh, Gavin E. and Hynes, Ian.
Witness testimony in sexual cases: Evidential, investigative and scientific perspectives. Radcliffe, Pamela, (Ed); Gudjonsson, Gisli, (Ed); Heaton-Armstrong, Anthony, (Ed); Wolchover, David, (Ed); pp. 221-233; New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2016. xlii, 413 pp.
Abstract:
Conducting sexual offence investigations is not as straightforward a task as some may think. The importance of understanding the fallibility of memory, the debate surrounding false and recovered memories, especially when investigating allegations of historical child sexual abuse, cannot be underestimated. The PEACE model of interviewing and ABE framework highlight how much the police service in England and Wales have developed both professionally and morally, no longer using cohersive and psychologically unsafe tactics to obtain information from victims, witnesses, and suspects of crime. Carefully planning and preparing effectively for an interview is fundamental to its overall efficacy with the potential to impact on numerous elements of the Interview process itself. This is especially so for the most vulnerable.
PEACE-ful interviewing/interrogation: What research can tell us.
Bull, Ray.
Diversity in harmony – Insights from psychology: Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Psychology. Shigemasu, Kazuo, (Ed); Kuwano, Sonoko, (Ed); Sato, Takao, (Ed); Matsuzawa, Tetsuro, (Ed); pp. 191-210; New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2018. xviii, 475 pp.
Abstract:
In many countries, the traditional way that investigators have interrogated those whom they suspect of having information relevant to possible wrongdoing has involved a pressurizing or oppressive approach. Interviews with suspects and with witnesses/victims are of utmost importance to society. They have, therefore, attracted extensive attention worldwide from the general public and the media as well as from professionals, such as lawyers and a few psychologists. The PEACE approach is based on a number of basic principles that were chosen by the police. This PEACE approach has also been adopted by many other investigative agencies in the UK and a growing number of organizations around the world.
Bringing PEACE to the United States: A Framework for Investigative Interviewing
Mary Schollum, Policing and Criminal Justice Consultant, Cambridge, England
THE POLICE CHIEF/NOVEMBER 2017, www.policechiefmagazine.org
EXCERPTS:
Information determines the direction and outcome of any investigation. With police investigations, a significant portion of the information collected comes from interviews with victims, witnesses, and suspects, which means these interviews must be skill- fully performed. However, few investigators have an innate ability to carry out investigative interviews with the necessary levels of skill and sensitivity expected by the public and the criminal justice system—it takes training and practice to develop this ability.
Evidence suggests that the PEACE framework for investigative interviewing can support such efforts. The model was developed almost 25 years ago for use by police in England and Wales. Its subsequent adoption by Scotland and Northern Ireland saw it become the interviewing method for the entire United Kingdom, and it has since been adopted by other countries. Although PEACE was developed by and for the police, the considerable body of research into its use makes it clear it can be used by any organization that has to discover facts—for example, investigations related to fraud, immigration, and employment.
Despite widespread adoption by the United Kingdom and increasing interest in PEACE among academic and law enforcement circles, the model has not yet been implemented by U.S. law enforcement. Research on the impact of current interrogational practices on the rates of false confessions and wrongful convictions suggests that the PEACE framework may be of benefit to the U.S. law enforcement community. This article considers what PEACE might offer the United States and provides information and recommendations based on the United Kingdom’s experience in adopting the model.
UK Investigative Interviewing Practice
Until 30 or so years ago, interviews of suspects in the United Kingdom were based on the notion of “interrogation” whereby police used an array of tactics designed to elicit a confession.1 The turning point came in 1984, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was enacted. Among other changes, the new law introduced stricter controls over police questioning, including audio recording of all suspect interviews, the right to legal representation for suspects, and limits on detention before charge.
These moves did not at first lead to a change in interview training or practices.2 However, a number of high-profile miscarriages of jus- tice (notably the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases, where the suspects’ confessions were later found to have been coerced by police misconduct), led to widespread judicial and public criticism.
As a result, in 1992, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office put together a team of experienced police officers to develop interview training that was noncoercive, ethically sound, and evidence based. With input from psychologists, lawyers, and academics, the result was the five-stage interview model known by the mnemonic PEACE. The letters of PEACE stand for
- Planning and Preparation
- Engage and Explain
- Account (Clarification and Challenge)
- Closure
- Evaluation
A pilot course of PEACE was run in four locations during the summer of 1992 and subjected to independent evaluation.3 The positive findings led to a training package that was initially delivered to officers with five to ten years of experience. The training was held in such high regard that it was eventually extended to all operational law enforcement officers in England and Wales.4 While continuous research and evaluation over the years have led to improvements of the PEACE model, the basic structure remains unchanged.
The PEACE Model
Figure 1 shows the five elements of the PEACE model. They cover the periods before, during, and after the interview and comprise the overarching framework used for all interviews with victims, witnesses, and suspects. The aim of PEACE is to enable interviewers to obtain accurate, relevant, and complete accounts from those being interviewed—and to ensure those accounts are admissible as evidence.
Depending on the type of interview, the PEACE framework contains a range of scientifically proven techniques for interviewers to draw on. These include free recall (FR), the enhanced cognitive interview (ECI), and conversation management (CM). While FR and the ECI are used mainly for victim and witness interviews, CM is used mainly for suspect interviews. Within those techniques, interviewers use a range of different tactics, such as active listening, use of pauses and silence, body language, different types of questions, memory jogs, seating arrangements, and so forth. The type of interview determines the level of training the interviewer must have and which techniques should be employed.
Evaluation and Research Regarding PEACE
Early evaluations of PEACE as an interviewing framework were positive. It was seen as providing a logical structure, and the five stages were easy for investigators to remember.9 Subsequent assessments have continued to praise PEACE as an overarching model but have also highlighted certain shortcomings. For example, a three-year study published in 2001, concluded that interviewers were expected to learn too much from just a one-week training course.10 The researchers recommended implementation of a tiered approach to PEACE training.11 This approach (with its mixture of theory and practice) was introduced in 2003 and remains in place today. Tiered training is seen as a fundamental requirement.