Last night, I watched The Mauritanian, a film about the true story of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Mauritanian who was detained in Guantanamo Bay for 14 years without charges. At one point, the film shows how a false confession was extracted from him through torture. It reminded me of the Reid Technique of Interviewing and Interrogation. The Reid Technique is used to train more than half of the police officers in the US. When a suspect is brought in, he is interviewed to determine whether he is telling the truth or lying. If the interrogators think he's lying, then they move on to more aggressive techniques to extract a confession. The problem is that police officers often see deceit even when there is none. If they think someone is guilty, everything the suspect does only serves to increase their suspicion. Furthermore, they will go to any lengths to get a confession, often lying about the evidence that they possess. People who are innocent are likely to waive their right to be silent or to get a lawyer. They assume that they will be able to demonstrate their innocence. However, what they don't realize is that they will rarely be given any opportunity to do so. Interrogators have been trained to state over and over again that the suspect is guilty, and to prevent any denials or alternative explanations. The suspect is placed in a situation of maximum psychological coercion. They are placed in a windowless room and berated for hours. The interrogators will use a "maximize" strategy by exaggerating the amount of evidence they have, and asserting that denial is futile. They also "minimize" by downplaying the crime ("You know, the victim had it coming, if you ask me.") or offering a mitigating narrative ("I bet you just needed the money.") These strategies exploit a form of cognitive myopia which downplays the future consequences of a confession, and magnifies the impact of present-moment duress. When maximizing and minimizing strategies are used in concert, the probability of false confessions is high. Another flaw in the US justice system is the role of plea bargains. Plea bargains are when someone pleads guilty in order to get a lighter sentence. About 9 in 10 people charged with a crime admit to being guilty. There's a good chance that many of these people did so because they calculated the odds and weren't willing to take the risk of a trial, even if they were innocent. Imagine if you had to choose between a 2-year sentence if you plead guilty, or risk a 25-year sentence if you go to trial and a jury finds you guilty. If your interrogators lied to you and told you that they had solid evidence against you, you'd probably plead guilty even if you were innocent. That's a systemic flaw in the US justice system. The Mauritanian shows that flaw taken to its extreme. --- Source: [[Unfair]]