By Mark Munro, P1 Contributor
As a large portion of sexual assault cases often have no physical evidence, the offender interview can be the most important component of an investigation.
The most overlooked portion of the offender interview is the rapport-building process. While some investigators consider this time wasted between Miranda Rights and a confession, rapport building can improve sex offender confession rates, reduce the effectiveness of the defense attorney’s strategies and provide a wealth of useful information.
Rapport is defined as a harmonious, empathetic or sympathetic relation or connection to another self. [1] Using this definition to explain the connection between investigator and suspect may seem a bit of a stretch.
Most investigators would consider rapport to be more of a time for introductions, providing personal information and then “blah, blah, blah” until the real interview begins. This fallacy in thinking contributes to the poor confession rate among sex offender suspects.
Why standard police interrogation tactics do not work with sex offenders
Confession rates for most crimes range from 42 percent to 55 percent, while child molester confession rates usually range from 21 percent to 27 percent. [2]
Generally the more experienced criminal does not confess. Sex offenders, however, often do not have an extensive criminal history, and their lack of comfort being interrogated should increase their confession rates.
Although there can be multiple reasons for the difference in confession rates, there are two prevailing explanations for the lower confession rates of sex offenders:
- The investigator’s lack of comfort about the topic;
- The suspect’s guilt and shame about the crime.
A common tactic for investigators is to normalize the offender’s decisions. For a burglar, the investigator might say, “I understand that due to your drug habit, you didn’t have a choice but to steal to buy drugs.”
Investigators cannot use this tactic with sex offenders because the investigator cannot create a scenario where they would be okay committing a sex crime. Based on this logic, investigators need to overcome the guilt and shame over the crime.
Standard interrogations build minimal rapport. Investigators often confront the suspect’s lies with evidence, coming from a position of control and authority. For sex offenders, this style of interrogation rarely leads to a confession.
Using pressure and evidence to get a confession from a sex offender has been shown to be ineffective. To understand why this does not work, consider how information is exchanged during conversations between personal friends.
Between close friends, embarrassing and sometimes humiliating confessions are willingly shared. This is often due to the deep level of friendship and trust that the other person will respect and understand these actions. Personal confessions are rarely shared outside of close friends and, if they are shared, it is only after such confessions had been shared multiple times prior.
When investigators attempt to obtain a confession from a suspect, the investigator is asking the suspect to disclose a personal and possible humiliating confession. If the suspect does not feel the investigator will respect and trust them, the confession will often not occur.
Investigators assume the suspect would never have confessed anyway, and since law enforcement interviews are a one-time event, the confession potential can never be accurately determined. This simply perpetuates the idea that the investigator’s method cannot be enhanced.
How rapport building changes the interview process with sex offenders
With better rapport building, the interrogation portion of the interview changes and the chances for a confession increase.
The beginning of an improved rapport phase is through active rapport, which involves intentional and purposeful actions that create and build rapport. Investigators need to see that rapport is not just a “getting to know you” phase. Investigators who practice decency, patience, composure and professionalism during sex offender interviews are more likely to elicit confessions. [3]
When research was conducted on convicted sex offenders, offenders reported that they knew “within seconds” whether or not “there would be rapport, or honest conversation.” Beyond this, the confession rates for sex crimes increases when the investigator uses a non-threatening, non-judgmental, empathetic approach. These qualities are created during the rapport stage and, if continued during the interview, will lead to a higher probability of a confession. [3]
This research details the importance of rapport for a good interview, which for sex crime investigations, leads to a good investigation.
5 ways to build rapport with sex offenders
Many investigators – and most people in general – hate sex offenders. Sex offenders are often perceived as monsters that should be killed. If this is your mindset going in to an interview with a suspect, let someone else do the interview. No matter how much you try to hide your “true feelings” about the suspect, the words you use and the interview directions you take will broadcast your feelings.
1. Pick the right location for the interview
For those who can treat a sex offender like other suspects, rapport building needs an active approach. The room where the interview is taking place, the number of interviewers, how the room is set, and your introduction contribute to the all-important first impression.
If the sex offender is a passive-type individual, the common “minimalist” interview room will be scary. Formal introductions and placing of “evidence folders” on the table will also create panic. If the goal is to gain their trust and help them relax enough to confess, these things move the interview in the wrong direction.
2. Begin with a welcome and a thank-you
Start the meeting with your name, a handshake and a thank-you for volunteering to be interviewed. If the suspect was transported by the police, apologize for the way they were treated by the officers. An apology or a thank-you early in the interview process allows the sex offender to feel more comfortable.
Child molesters can often be very passive when interacting with authority figures, so even though the investigator is being more friendly than normal, this will not create any changes in power dynamics in the interview.
3. Treat the suspect like a potential friend
From the beginning of the interview, focus on treating the suspect like a potential friend.
Start the interview by asking the suspect to “tell me a little about you” instead of the formal demographic information. This sets the tone of the interview as more of the beginning of a friendship than an interrogation.
You can intersperse detail questions about date of birth, address and employment, during this “get to know you phase.”
4. Find two areas of common interest
Next the investigator will have to find at least two areas of shared knowledge or interest. Two areas are the absolute minimum, because if for some reason one of the topics does not create a connection between the interviewer and the suspect, a backup topic is available. Restarting the “getting to know you” phase to find a second area of conversation is awkward and may not be productive.
The common bond found in this shared interest will further cement the “friendship,” which can then be used during the interrogation phase.
5. Treat the suspect as an equal
Investigators need to use the rapport-building phase to praise and encourage the suspect.
The suspect will be expecting an interviewer who hates them, puts them down and, if the movies and television shows were accurate, yells and threatens them. Treating the suspect as an equal makes them more relaxed.
The offender has probably rehearsed how they believe the interview will go, so starting the interview with a different approach prevents them from following their rehearsed speech – which would not include a confession.
Active rapport building needs to continue until the suspect relaxes, appears comfortable and forgets about Miranda. For the interviewer, active rapport building continues until they find at least one redeeming quality and two topics of common interest. If the interviewer despises the suspect, the suspect cannot be “worked” into a confession. Finding a redeeming quality allows the interviewer to see the suspect as a person, which dramatically changes the atmosphere of the interview.
How to continue the interview after rapport is established
Using this active rapport strategy gives the interviewer more than just a “friendly” confession. The relationship built during this phase can be used to pressure the suspect later in the interview. The praise and encouragement expressed during rapport building can be turned into disappointment later in the interview.
For example, if the suspect denied the crimes and the interviewer had praised the suspect for their parenting and concern for his children, the interviewer can later express disappointment that they would force their victim to take the stand against them.
The interviewer can also say, “I thought you promised to be honest. I have been honest with you, and you started being honest with me. I thought we respected each other enough to stay honest with each other.”
This type of praise withdrawal can work for passive child molesters, but the respect and friendship has to be established during the rapport building for this to work.
Investigators can then continue the interview with the following tasks in mind:
1. Observe the suspect’s baseline
Prior to directly addressing the crime, and while the rapport is being established, the investigator can also learn important pieces of information.
While the suspect is talking about “safe” topics, observe their “baseline” for pitch, volume, non-verbal cues and sentence structure. This can then be contrasted with the pitch, volume, non-verbal cues and sentence structure during the interrogation phase.
If the suspect talks freely, using their hands to communicate, and varying pitch and volume during the rapport building, but these qualities all go away during the interrogation, this is important to note.
2. Ask questions on “safe” topics first
The investigator must ask questions that result in “yes”, “no” and a denial. A denial is a “no” that, if the suspect was being honest, would have been a “yes.”
Investigators often struggle with trying to differentiate a no versus a denial during the interrogation phase. Addressing this distinction on “safe” topics is easier.
A small confrontation during rapport building could get the suspect to admit that denial, and allow them to change their “no” to a “yes.”
Praise after they correct their denial can also be used during the interrogation phase, when you can encourage them to admit to a crime they had already denied.
3. Pose “The Question”
An important key to the baseline is based on “The Question,” which is different for each suspect, but always has the same intent.
“The Question” is something that is always preceded by an apology: “I’m sorry for having to ask this, but I am required to ask.” The investigator then asks a question that is sexual in nature, and usually results in a “no” response.
The “offensive” part is very subjective, and will change based on the level of rapport and the suspect’s personality. The apology is done to humanize the investigator, further creating rapport, and to tell the suspect that that investigator does not believe the answer should be “yes.” The question provides a definite “no” on a sexual issue, which can then be compared to the denials about sexual issues in the interrogation phase.
Conclusion
The use of active rapport creates an atmosphere that provides a greater likelihood of a confession, but the process does have a few downsides. The interview itself may take substantially more time, but that can also result in additional charges or identified victims. A longer interview will also create a longer report, as more information has been shared by the suspect.
For sex crimes investigations, the confession can be the only difference between guilty and not guilty. When the sex offender interview is that important, investigators should use every tool than can increase confession rates. When an investigator uses rapport with a purpose, and focuses on active rapport-building, they will find that suspects who would not have confessed will openly admit and provide enough secondary evidence for a conviction.
References
- Moston S, Stephenson GM. Police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1994 1(2): 151-157.
- Kassin SM, Gudjonsson GH. The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature & issues. Psychol Sci Public Interest, 2004 5(2): 33-67.
- O’Connor T, Carson W. Understanding the psychology of child molesters: A key to getting confessions. The Police Chief, 2005, 72, 1–7.
Bibliography
- Holmberg U, Christianson SÅ. Murderers’ ́and sexual offenders’ ́experiences and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2002, 20: 31-45.
- Collins R, Lincoln R, Frank M. The need for rapport in police interviews.
- Moston S, Engelberg T. Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 1993, 3(3): 223-237
- Newberry JJ, Stubbs CA. Advanced Interviewing Techniques. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms National Academy, Glynco, Georgia, 1997.
- Williamson TM. From interrogation to investigative interviewing; strategic trends in police questioning. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology, 1993, 3(2): 89-99.
About the author
Mark Munro has investigated over 500 sex crimes during his work for the Hobbs Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Division. Munro is an active member of the New Mexico Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, and has worked numerous cases investigating child pornography. He is a law enforcement instructor, and has presented multiple trainings in the area of child abuse and sex crimes. Munro has testified as an expert witness regarding victim and offender behaviors related to sex crimes. Prior to Munro’s position with the Hobbs Police Department, he worked for 10 years as a licensed therapist, performing individual and group treatment with convicted sex offenders. He continues to be an active member of ATSA (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers).