Download Psychology Personality disorders Mood related disorders and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
POLICE INTERROGATION
2 ASPECTS
- Process of Interrogation - Understood as any psychological interview or questioning session with the perspective of eliciting a confession from a suspect. Interrogation is to obtain a valuable information which can lead to a conviction (not always of the person concerned but of someone else). Interrogation and confession are related notions. Confessions are the most damaging piece of evidence that can be entered in a criminal trial or a court of law against the person and thus confessions becomes an important area of psycho legal study. ( The false confessions given by individuals might actually be at times believed to be true by the person itself. So the person who has not committed the crime at times may confess to committing that particular crime and at the time of giving the confession the person might be believing that he has actually committed the crime when he has not actually committed it.) As far as interrogation or the process of interrogation is concerned there are multi- faceted issues. Issues to do with specific procedures which are followed during the interrogation like the conditions which are created at the time of interrogation to facilitate a confession in an individual, the validity of the waiver to the rights which are given by the suspects, the warnings given to the suspects (this has to do with the rights of the suspects- right to remain silent, right to an attorney), the validity of the confession itself. An underlying aspect, for which all of these conditions can be used and have implications for is to do with the notion of Psychological Coercion (is abroad term and any technique used in order to build a pressure on a suspect or in order to influence the responses of the suspect specifically facilitating a confession on the part of suspect which are non-physical in nature is qualified to be a part of psychological tactic and if it is extreme then it is psychological coercion). The notion of Physical Notion is widely accepted in the field of law. There are many cases where courts have rejected evidence from an interrogation which have been physically coercive. Confession through prolonged physical violence, through beatings or the use of any physically coercive technique is considered to be an absolute no in the field of law. Even western cases (prior to the 1950s) there are trend where the courts have consistently rejected invalidated confessions which have been elicited by the use of physical coercion. But the Psychological Coercion is a concept which has found acknowledgement post the 1950s. Looking at the evolution of the acceptance of psychological coercion, gradually there was an increased acceptance and then there was a decline. So there is still acceptance but over a period of time the specific techniques which the courts have used to limit the use of psychological coercion has declined over time.
*The courts have now recognized the psychological tactics are inherent in the process of interrogation but the extent to which they are used needs to be restricted in order to ensure that they do not have manipulative impact on the responses of the suspect. To what extent the psychological pressure building tactics are ok and when do they qualify to be psychological coercion and they need to be stopped. Although there is no single defining line but it’s still very fluid. SAUL KASSIN ( American Forensic Psychologist) in 1997 gave a list of 6 specific categories, which according to him were qualified to be coerced confessions.
1. Use of Physical Abuse- specifically the use of grouped force and confession resulting from it would essentially be a coerced confession. The other 5 do have a physical element to it because a person is involved and there is some amount of physical discomfort and have an underlying physical element to it but do not qualify to the use of physical violence/abuse/force. 2. Any confession elicited out of prolonged isolation- Individual isolated for a very long time and the response or confession given by the individual post that. 3. Prolonged deprivation of sleep and food- Individual who has not been allowed to sleep for a long time and hasn’t been given food for a long time. It can be argued that not giving food to an individual is a physiological aspect and not allowing a person to sleep is again physical in nature to a certain extent but only so much and beyond that sleep deprivation can have a psychological impact on the decision making of the person as well. 4. Use of promises of leniency or immunity- Here there is manipulation through promising leniency and thus the person ends up confessing falsely with the expectation that he might be left and thus chooses to end up the interrogative process by confessing falsely and is involuntary. 5. Use of threat of punishment or harm- Is clearly a psychological technique with no underlying physical aspect and the interrogator is trying to obtain a certain kind of response by using threats of harm. These responses may or may not be true but either which ways these are involuntarily (individual is promised something in response to a confession then it is involuntary because a manipulative factor was used here) given. Had the confessions been made voluntarily then are admissible in the court of law. 6. Barring exceptional circumstances without giving the warnings with regards to the rights of the suspect- *Miranda Warnings. Miranda v Arizona- Miranda rights speak of a few specific rights and is to do with informing the suspect of his rights (highlighted in the case)- right to remain silent, telling the person that anything said by him could be used against him, right to an attorney and if the person cannot arrange for an attorney then the State would do it for the person.
FIRST, the confession was obtained after the individual had repeatedly asked for a lawyer/attorney, but was denied the request. (At this time the notion of Miranda Rights or the notion that an individual must be appointed an attorney if he hasn’t waived the right, was not acknowledged much). SECOND, when an individual is emotionally upset it is likely to lead to inhibition of the rationale appraisal/judgment/decision making of the person. The court rejected the confession as inadmissible stating that the confession is involuntarily obtained specifically because the person repeatedly asked for an attorney but was not provided one. Also, the techniques of interrogation that were used were so psychologically coercive that they resulted in emotionally upsetting the individual which in turn resulted in adversely affecting the rationale judgment or decision making of the individual. The court particularly said that in order to do away with injustice of such sort it shall be ensured that the individual is allowed the presence of attorney at the time of interrogation. Such a presence is likely to give a sense of psychological security to the individual and also psychological coercion can be avoided. Any technique which has the potential of emotionally upsetting the individual will then be qualified as a technique which uses psychological coercion because emotionality is likely to have a negative impact on the reasonability of the person. While studying ethics it was said that the presence of third party during interview is likely to have an adverse effect on the process of interviewing. So is this right of an attorney in contradiction to that? So, in the Estelle v Smith case the courts clearly mentioned that the presence of an attorney is not required and if the person hasn’t waived the right to an attorney then the attorney must be intimated about the interviewing but the presence is not mandatory in this case. Differentiating between Interviewing V Interrogation THE REID METHOD OF INTERROGATION- This method is followed in the US and is also critiqued. Begins with a calm phase where purpose is information gathering and once enough information is collected to accuse the person then the focus shifts from an investigative focus to an accusatory focus. It differentiates between the 2 phases of the interrogation- 1 st^ Stage- Investigative Interviewing- The focus of the stage is simply information gathering with respect to the case. The interviewer in congenial towards the interviewee and a warm environment is maintained. The aim is to persuade the interviewee to give relevant information that could possibly lead to accusation. Focus here is information gathering. 2 nd^ Stage- Interrogation- Accusatory in nature. Focus here is to accuse the individual. The interrogator in this stage is more pitted against the suspect. A high stress environment is maintained and the aim is to obtain a confession. Essentially in this case the court highlighted the existence of 2 different kinds of interviewing techniques- Investigative v Interrogative. And highlighted that it is okay to not allow the attorney to be present physically when the interviewing is done with the focus of gathering information.
But once the focus of the interviewing shifts from investigative to accusatory one then the attorney should be allowed to be present physically and is essential from the perspective of preventing any kind of psychological coercion or misuse of any psychological tactics. One of the underlying reasons- the presence of an attorney will itself guarantee some kind of psychological security to the suspect who is being interrogated and attorney oversees that psychological pressure is not built. MIRANDA V ARIZONA (1966) The court in this case specifically came up with rights of the suspect during the interrogation and the warnings to be given to the suspect prior the interrogation. The court acknowledged that psychological pressure tactics are used explicitly during interrogative processes and these tactics can have a forceful impact on the responses of the suspect and resulting in manipulation. The courts also stated that- psychological coercion is actually more widely used then physical coercion. Physical coercion is used in order to ensure psychological coercion. Courts stated- ‘The blood of the suspect is not the hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition’ meaning only if the individual is physically abused does not imply that it would result in an unconstitutional confession. Even without blood/physical abuse the confession can be unconstitutional if it is psychologically abused. In this context the court said that there should be certain rights of the suspect and the person before beginning with the interrogation the suspect shall be informed of the existence of these rights and any confession taken without informing of such rights or without the person voluntarily signing the waiver of these rights would be inadmissible in the court. 4 RIGHTS GIVEN IN THE CASE-
**1. Right to remain silent
- A warning which comes along with the right to remain silent that anything said by** **the suspect can be used against him.
- Right to an attorney
- Right to get a state appointed attorney (if the person cannot afford an attorney).** These rights were brought in as a safeguard against psychological coercion and would give a sense of security and would go on to alleviate to certain extent the psychological coercion which would take place during the interrogative process. Looking at the evolution of acceptance of psychological coercion in the field of law, initially there was a strong position that was taken by courts when the acknowledged the existence of psychological coercion but gradually it dwindled off and faded away. So initially not only in the case of direct interrogation but also in a functional equivalent of interrogation (any process which the court decided was a functional equivalent of an interrogative process) had to use the Miranda rights prior to getting any information from the suspect. BREWER V WILLIAMS (1977)
Miranda warning clause does not apply to this case. You look at all the facts of the case and the circumstances rather than just one aspect that for instance in this case that Miranda warning was not given and use this only to determine the case, No. All the facts need to be considered.
Initially the courts were very specific about the Miranda warnings but over a period of time the importance of the Miranda rights and also the focus of the courts on the restriction of psychological coercion has fizzled out and is visible in the multiple kinds of exceptions that are used in order to allow in cases where the Miranda warnings are not given. PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION This was formulated in the context of the 1984 case- NEW YORK V QUARLES Wherein the individual was charged with the possession of an illegal weapon along with which were other charges. The person was arrested in a super mart and it was suspected that he had hidden the illegal weapon somewhere in the super mart. So immediately after the arrest the police grilled him and questioned him and ultimately he disclosed the location of the weapon which was located in a public arena. In this case even though the questioning happened absolutely directed at the suspect and happened without giving the Miranda warnings, the court allowed it. In the previous Brewer Case, direct questioning was considered to be functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore had not allowed it. But in this case the court admitted the confession, stating that this constituted public safety exception wherein since the weapon was within public arena it could have been a threat to public safety in general and thus it is sometimes ok to question the individual and to gain information without giving the Miranda warnings. What is considered is the spontaneity of the situation rather than sticking by the book. Literature also mentions a number of other exceptions as well and public safety exception being just one of them. What is important is the language used to communicate the warnings is also considered to be important and that the warnings have to be clear warnings and have to be understood by the suspect. Eventually the courts have also accepted- ambiguous warnings as valid warnings. DUCKWORTH V EAGAN The confession in this case was challenged on the basis that the warning given was an ambiguous one and it was not clearly understood by the suspect and specifically in this case the interrogator told the suspect (in the context of assigning an attorney/the right to an attorney) that there is no way they can arrange an attorney for him but if he still demands an attorney, they’ll try and arrange one when he goes for the trial. The right was informed to him in a complicated and an ambiguous way. Unclear way of presenting the warning. When challenged, the court admitted that the warnings presented were valid and the manner of delivering was held to be valid by the court, highlighting the fact that during interrogation the
(Internalized Guilt/Need to punish oneself) Excessive internalized guilt causing the need to punish oneself is another important factor which psychological research highlights. This guilt resulting in punishing oneself further results in the individual committing a crime because he would know that this might lead to conviction and some kind of punishment. Because all of these forces are internal, these confessions are considered to be voluntary in nature. This can be perceived as an inner pressure that the person is exerting rather than external pressure. And this can be psychological coercion coming from within. INVOLUNTARY FALSE CONFESSION/ COERCED FALSE CONFESSION- ‘ Coerced’ because it is assumed that if the person is confessing to something without the willingness and forced into confessing a crime, then there is some level of coercion that is involved and is not restricted to only physical but psychological coercion as well. Coerced Compliant Confessions When the individual is trying to comply externally with certain behaviors which are desired out of the individual. COMPLIANCE IN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR- Compliance explains the behavior when the individual just changes the external behavior in response to certain demands that are placed on the individual but does not necessarily change the internal behavior or beliefs. Changing or altering one’s social behavior even though the internal beliefs are different from what is expressed. 2 Types- (Putting an end to the strenuous process of interrogation/ threatening by causing harm) This might be the case where person might confess to put an end to all the abuse and coercion that the person is going through. (Promises of leniency or immunity offered) In an alternate situation if the person confesses due to immunity or leniency that is promised to the person again the person confesses not because he believes in that but because he feels that there will be certain benefits that he would get if he would confess to the crimes that he hasn’t committed. Coerced Internalized False Confessions An internalization means that the individual actually starts believing in something which might not necessarily be true in the case. These are cases where the individual confesses to the commission of a crime and at the same time also starts believing that he actually did commit the crime when he actually did not. This typically is the case where an individual who is tired of interrogation and is also confused because of all the harsh conditions that he is subjected to (food and sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation) and is exposed to, leads to some kind of cognitive hampering or damaging of rationale decision making of the person. And this cognitive damage (all the harsh conditions during interrogation resulting in a cognitive hampering) combined with ‘interrogative suggestibility’ ( Gud Jonsson coined this term) - very suggestive interrogative techniques which are constantly
feeding in this information on the person that he committed the crime. This results in a situation where the person starts actually believing that he indeed committed the crime. For Gud Jonsson, a case of Internalized Coerced Confession is simply a game of pressure tactics and confidence game (inducing cognitive confusion) In an experiment done by Kassin where he set up a lab and told his examinees that he is performing an experiment which is to test the reaction time of the examinee. They were supposed to simply sit in front of the computer and when a certain kind of stimuli flashed on the screen (stimuli were to do with alphabets), the examinee was supposed to hit the related alphabet key on the keyboard. Along with this they were told to not press the ‘alt’ key and if they pressed it the computer would crash. The computer was programmed to crash after 10 seconds. So after the experiment started, irrespective of the keys that the examinees pressed the computer would anyway crash after 10 seconds from its commencement. This was followed by this freaked out examiner entering into the lab and blaming the examinee for pressing the alt key. In all of the cases the examinee had not pressed the ‘alt’ key. Results indicated that initially all the examinees denied that they had pressed the ‘alt’ key but once the experimenter explicitly manifested how freaked out and distressed he was, 69% of the examinees went onto agree that they had pressed the ‘alt’ key. Later they were given a questionnaire where they had to respond, 28% of the examinee who agreed to press the ‘alt’ key, actually internalized the fact. The content analysis of their responses showed that they were agreeing to it not because they were under pressure by the examiner but because they actually started believing that they had pressed it. In about 9% of these cases, people actually ‘confabulated’ (Confabulation- filling in the gaps. While recalling an event if there are gaps in that event then as part of the cognitive processes implied in memory, the person is likely to make up the information to fill in those gaps) which meant that when they were asked to give a narrative of what had happened they actually made up the stories and filled in the gaps and came up with their own explanations about how they went on to hit the ‘alt’ key. Also the experiment shows that when the high rate of presentation of stimulus (quickly flashed on the screen) was passed, then the probability of agreeing to having pressed the ‘alt’ key was high as compared to a slow stimulation presentation case where the stimuli was presented slowly and is a relatively less stress inducing situation. In a high stress situation the possibility and probability of internalizing is way more. Research suggests that when you use these conclusions in an actual set up, it might be difficult to differentiate between all of these types. So a lot of times it is not possible to gauge the real motive behind a false confession and therefore a clear cut classification is mostly not possible. And also a lot of internalized confessions are momentary states of believing in something. Once the process is done and over with and the person returns to a relatively normal situation and starts reflecting back again, gains his ability to reason then the realization might dawn that he never really committed the crime. So in a lot cases the internalization might be temporary and might resolve at a later stage.
Ways in which these psychological principles can be implemented- 3 broad categories/elements of interrogative session which can be used to communicate these psychological principles- (i) Setting of the setup of the interrogation setup- One sided glass, table, one light source, 2 chairs, and room is usually uni-coloured with a dull door. Nothing else is kept, the reason being for not conducting an interrogation in a regular room is to communicate a sense of tension, no objects to hit the interrogator or oneself. Psychologically, a strange /unfamiliar set up creates uncomfortableness to us and we want to go back to home. Some people when upset might go to certain place (because during stressful situations, human mind tend to cling on to familiar objects/aspects to make them feel better, the objects can be people, things, places). Therefore, an interrogative setup holds minimal objects, no colors (familiar colors can be a source of comfort).These setups have the purpose to minimize the familiarity and when it goes down, a sense of insecurity kind of increases. A direct outcome of this is simulation of tension. Second benefit is insurance of isolation and privacy because if an object is kept, it might create distraction and one might lose focus. The setting usually is a private setting. So, usually the interrogative rooms does not open into corridors (to ensure isolation). The barging of other people in room might distract the suspect. The presence of psychological security. (ii) Conduct in the interview itself- Voice modulation (confident, stern, grounded voice communicates ‘control’), aggression (banging the table) (but aggression might not work depending upon the emotionality of the suspect), expression (stern, confident). Usually the suspect is sitting on the chair and interrogator is standing and he might sit on the table, the reason behind is that it shows the interrogator at a higher platform and the suspect looks up to the interrogator, this establishes his position as the person in authority. The interrogator might also work around (mobility) while suspect is sitting, also establishes control (the interrogator has choice to freely move around while the suspect has not). The interrogator might also have a chair with wheels while suspect sits on a regular chair. Violation of private space is another element- When tension is being built up and the interrogator is questioning the suspect, he might stand very close or keep his hand close to suspect- this is violation of personal space (it is an extreme level of exhibiting control), it clearly communicates control and superiority). Body language is important, usually a stern face might communicate a calm, relaxed situation to the suspect. So such face with no emotions is an aspect which is used, in lot of cases barring a specific category of suspects, it is usually suggested that at least for a while the interrogator should maintain his peace and calm and not directly jump into aggression unless tension building is requires because doing so might communicate that interrogator knows it all and is not in a hurry to get information from suspect but simply to get a conclusion and communicating calm, showing that suspect has to confess and has enough time for it but will have to eventually give in
and make a confession, this kind of message if transferred leads to a sooner confession. The interrogator does not use paper pencil to take notes, it is usually avoided and the information and conversation are usually recorded by using a Dictaphone (now a days video recordings usually take place). Constant note taking is likely to distract (breaks the flow of situation), makes him cautious (Dictaphone, CCTV, one way glass), minimizes the authority/confidence that the interrogator’s trying to communicate (it convinces suspect that while writing, he might miss out on some points and he does not know everything about crime that is why he is taking notes). The use of weapons induces a sense of control which can be exerted through it, an interrogator might pull out a gun and put in on the table or tuck the gun where it is clearly visible to the suspect (subtle element of fact that a weapon is present, usually not done in case of violent victims because it might trigger them, but in lot of cases- theft, first time suspects who are not engaged in violent crimes, the use of weapon would exert control but one has to be decisive about to what extent of intimidation he has to use through a weapon, so if gun used aggressively-pointed at the suspect the he might get too intimidated. Weapons thus are used very subtly and with a minimal visibility. (iii) Questioning methods- Rapport formation usually done in a clinical setup. Whenever a client comes in the first few sessions are rapport formation and is dedicated towards developing comfort and familiarity levels with client. Trust building is its essence. In an interrogative process some time is spent in asking just the background, general questions that might be related to case but definitely do not trigger a denial of guilt in the suspect. It is used to initiate the dialogue and in establishing comfort and second use is that the suspect should honestly give answers of the general questions asked and this will help the investigator to understand the thought process of the suspect. It enhances the information about suspect which can be used to develop further techniques for him. Good Cop- Bad Cop Technique- It is a role playing technique. It is used very frequently during interrogations. The interrogator plays role of a very stern, harsh, coercive, abusive, aggressive cop (BAD COP). This stress level reaches the peak and suspect is extremely threatened. This is maximization phase (stress at max). He builds stress and conveys the message that ‘from here it will only get worse!’ He is warm, respectful, and polite, communicates concern maybe getting the suspect food and water, and sympathizes the suspect. This technique builds up trust (very effective trust building technique) also very effective for naïve offenders who believe and picture bad cop as the representative of police department, who is very harsh but when good cop takes over, he feels that this is the only nice person around who understands him. He contrasts both of them and builds trust with good cop and ends up giving up information or even confessing.
Research tells that frequent mentioning of god and religion by individuals, are often guilty if not entirely then at least they were involved to a certain extent or had knowledge of it. At the start, they try to put up this defense that they are involved in religion and therefore he will not do something like this or will not assist a crime.
During rapport formation very neutral background questions are asked which the suspect can answer honestly without deceiving. It is important because it kind of sets the trend for non- deceptive answering and lays a ground work for honest conversation. CONTENT OF THE QUESTIONS- How are they asked, what specific questions are asked vary from situation to situation and upon style of interrogator but some important factors be kept in mind for questions to work are that of- Questions need to be non-suggestive in nature or non-directive- implies, at least, initially no need to suggest whether person did commit the crime, it is always required to allow some space to the person to come up with such responses for himself. Responses with regards to what extend was he involved in the crime. It also implies that use of specific terms with respect to the nature of crime should be avoided specifically labelling the crime. For example, statements like- ‘You committed the murder.’ And statements regarding the specific crime, such labels at least initially should not be announced explicitly. This is because these threatening terms can be inducing defensive behavior, even a normal person will get defensive hearing of such a crime label against him. So when a suspect is challenged on face, it will instantly put him in a defensive position and would straight forwardly deny. Once he begins to deny the responsibility for the crime then it is likely to lead to further denial during interrogation. In order to prevent defensive responding style- use of labels, direct challenge, associating labels with him should be avoided. Along with this if the labels are themselves suggestive in nature like saying ‘a murder has occurred’ is like painting a framework or a context within which the suspect will start responding from thereon. So instead of doing so and defining the range of responses for suspect would also limit his responses. It is thus important to engage in open ended questioning and wait for suspect to come up with what he understands of the crime and this gives the sense of his regarding the crime, it will let the interrogator know what he sees there, foe example, a killing like, as a murder, abuse, act of violence basically how he wants to label or tag it. Investigator should probe for specifics instead of painting a global broad picture of what happened- Probing for specifics gives a very important understanding of what extent the person is engaged in crime, his understanding of it and later to detect if he is lying. Because these specifics can later be challenged with respect to certain information where interrogator might have about the crime and also when one gets into specifics and minor details. When the person is asked to retain the crime later, it is more likely that if he is lying, he will be ending up countering himself giving some contradicting information. While questioning the EMOTIONALITY of suspect is important, it is also important for interrogator to start gauging the individual’s emotionality right at the rapport formation stage. Usually, extremely emotional individuals (neurotic individuals- anxious, sensitive, give-in stress situations, easy to anger, very sensitive in responding to environmental stimuli, more reactive
- Confidence of interrogator
- Establishes control- Defense personnel is in control now.
- Builds up tension- the suspect have this in mind that an authority knows that he did something against the law, irrespective of whatever he says, he will be held guilty. If interrogator is sure of the guilt of then questions like- ‘Did you commit the crime’ should be avoided. So, questions of ‘WHETHER” variety be avoided, because suspect invariably is going to deny it and once he denies he will keep doing it in complete session. It leads to lesser likelihood of a sooner confession. So question of ‘HOW’ + ‘WHAT’ variety should be asked. It implies the interrogator knows he committed crime and now they are only interested in knowing how and what was the reason. Research tells us if nothing works with a suspect, what works best is SILENCE, as it is a tremendous pressure exertor, stress builder because silence is the best way to offer uncertainty to the suspect (nobody is saying anything or visiting him, he does not know what is going to happen and over a period of time the silence is going to build a pressure, control, as nothing is happening and he cannot do anything about it). REGARDING MIRANDA RIGHTS Psychological deceit is used a lot of times in almost all interrogations. Common understanding is that an interrogative process will inevitably use psychological deceptive measures. To a certain extent, Miranda verdict and the application of it principles in later cases is kind of dwindling away. Many forensic psychologists note the fact that we have complied by over a period of time, complied by the letter of law. We certainly have not complied by the spirit of the law, which means that Miranda Rights are being told to suspect but it is done in a certain way where they essentially have lost the very purpose of being protective. An author John Hayes wrote about Lindburgh verdict, said that, while telling the warnings during the Lindburgh case interrogations, while informing the suspects of their rights essentially they were told in a very ambiguous, complex manner. So, specifically in one case, the attorney told the individuals that we will get an attorney. For you, if that is your demand, but I also want you to know that of all individuals who are waiting on their death row, nobody got there without the benefit of an attorney.. While waiving off Miranda Rights, it is assumed that a waiver actually constitutes a valid waiver only when it is given knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. VOLUNTARILY- Waiver given under no coercion. KNOWINGLY_ Individuals aware of the rights. INTELLIGENTLY- Not only does he know of it but he also understands what the rights are and what could be the consequences of waiving off these rights could be. In this context it is important to reflect that despite knowing the possible positive consequences of waiving off the rights. Why is it that so many suspects still continue to do so, which of course is against their self-interest and why is it that so many suspects continue to give self- incriminating evidence against themselves despite the fact that extremely subtle, psychologically
deceptive techniques continue to be used in court through the process of interrogation resulting in waivers and confessions. When individual is not guilty it is understandable why would they waive off their rights but so many suspects waive off their rights and offer potentially incriminating evidence against themselves. So these are individuals who probably did commit the crime and are still deciding to waive off their rights and it is clearly against their self-interest. So it is worth thinking why they actually engaged in that.
