Within their book “Criminal Interrogation and Confessions” John E Reid et al (2013) outline the key differences between interrogations and interviews before going into further detail. Reid et al (2013) describe interviews as a type of non-accusatory form of questioning in which the main aim is to gain information. They highlight that it is important to have a non-accusatory tone even when the interviewer has a good reason to believe that the suspect is guilty as it helps to build a good rapport with the suspect. Reid et al (2013) also believe that this type of interaction helps to gain useful information from suspects due to the rapport gained previously. Another aspect of an interview which makes it different from an interrogation is that interviews tend not to have a specific structure which can help gain valuable information which the suspect could have considered irrelevant.…show more content… An interrogation should only be done when the interviewer has a good reason to believe that this person is guilty and is structured in a way which aims to get a confession out of the suspect. Interrogations tend to take place in an environment which can be controlled by the interrogators in order to make the suspect uncomfortable which can make them more likely to confess. The differences between an interview and interrogation are very important when discussing how different countries approach each technique as knowing the key features helps to expand our understanding in terms of how each technique can aid the police to catch criminals. As this essay continues these different techniques will be discussed in detail with emphasis on how the countries do things differently and what they do the same as well how this can affect suspects and their
