Here are the tactics of the police when suspects remain silent

“No comment” or just silence is a common response when police are interrogating, both in the circles around criminal networks and among other suspects.

And what do you do when someone doesn’t want to tell? A new study has found out more about the tactics Swedish police use.

To remain silent during questioning is a right that all suspects have, according to the twelfth paragraph of the preliminary investigation announcement. But there is frustration among police officers that a culture of silence has spread and that suspects are using the right to remain silent in a way that was not intended.

In recent decades, interrogation techniques have shifted from being often confrontational and aiming to obtain a confession to focusing on extracting as much information as possible.

– Research shows that with the confrontational methods where the aim is recognition, the risk of receiving incorrect information increases. It is not ethically justifiable and it increases the risk of an innocent confessing falsely. So today the main focus is on these information-gathering techniques, says Mikaela Magnusson, who researches interrogation techniques at the University of Gothenburg.

“A chance”

But how should one think about these techniques if the suspect doesn’t say a word? The research on such situations is very limited, but last year Mikaela Magnusson and her colleagues came up with a new study that examined how Swedish police officers deal with silence, and which was published in the journal Legal and criminological psychology.

The study is based on survey responses from 289 employees with experience of holding interrogations. Based on it, the researchers have divided the tactics mentioned by the police into four overarching strategies, one of which is about providing information.

– It was, for example, to talk about the advantages of cooperating, that the police interrogation becomes a chance for the suspects to provide information during the preliminary investigation that can help them provide an alibi or show that they are innocent, says Mikaela Magnusson.

Threat image may exist

The most common, however, was the questioning strategy: continuing to ask the questions even though you don’t get an answer.

– It can have several different purposes, partly to give the suspect the chance to answer and partly to show later that we have asked these questions to the suspect who chose not to answer.

The researchers were also able to see what they called a supportive strategy, where the interrogator tries to establish contact with the suspect.

– You can ask about the reason for the silence, could there be a threat or is the suspect trying to protect someone else? That you try to build trust, says Mikaela Magnusson.

Need to understand why

A fourth strategy was linked to the procedure itself, such as changing the interrogator or holding several interrogations over time.

Mikaela Magnusson believes that more research is needed into the underlying reasons why a suspect chooses to remain silent. When the researchers looked at the strategies, they found that these can be linked to underlying assumptions about why someone doesn’t talk, she says.

– The supporting strategies are more emotion-based, that you create a good climate that can help the person tell about a crime. In the information-based strategies, it is more about rational decision-making, highlighting the pros and cons of talking or not talking. There I think more research could help, if we understand the reasons why people are silent it could become an important piece of the puzzle.

Facts

Here are some of the tactics in the study

Read more