question archive What do you think the risk-to-benefit ratio is regarding interrogation techniques more commonly associated with false confessions? Do you think they're also more likely to get legitimate confessions, or do you think they shouldn't be employed in interrogations? What expertise can a forensic psychologists offer law enforcement during interrogations? What about after suspects confess?
What do you think the risk-to-benefit ratio is regarding interrogation techniques more commonly associated with false confessions? Do you think they're also more likely to get legitimate confessions, or do you think they shouldn't be employed in interrogations? What expertise can a forensic psychologists offer law enforcement during interrogations? What about after suspects confess?
Subject:PsychologyPrice:4.89 Bought3
What do you think the risk-to-benefit ratio is regarding interrogation techniques more commonly associated with false confessions? Do you think they're also more likely to get legitimate confessions, or do you think they shouldn't be employed in interrogations?
What expertise can a forensic psychologists offer law enforcement during interrogations? What about after suspects confess?
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Confessions while under duress are a commonly understand failure on the part of interrogation techniques. This wasn't always the case, but the number of false confessions have revealed that garnering a true confession is much more arduous than torturing someone. Contemporary psychology sees the risk-to-benefit ratio as irrelevant unless time is a factor. War time changes some techniques employed in order to gain information, but there isn't enough research to know if that is still trustworthy information.
