I think that psychologists should not participate in interrogations. Despite their potential usefulness as a tool of extracting information, the moral obligations of the profession and the reputation that is supported by them are more important than government success. By allowing psychologists to use their knowledge in order to manipulate certain people, extract information or inflict psychological harm, it is possible to also affect innocent individuals. This assessment is partially supported by existing restrictions on psychologist participation in specific types of interrogation (Munsey, 2008). The practice of psychologically interrogating individuals under pressure should be changed.
According to the present existing documents, psychological work plays an important role in understanding the psyche of criminals, and aids investigative work. Psychologists are sometimes used to apply their skills to convicted offenders, and to counteract terrorism (Speckhard, 2015). However, it is also important to consider it within the framework of torture, wrongful convictions, and professional obligations of healthcare professionals. First, it should be noted that confessions made under pressure of physical violence or mental stress tend to be unreliable. In many cases, individuals that have nothing to hide are forced to fabricate testimonies in order to escape cruel treatment. Even the presence of a psychologist cannot be a guarantee of a reliable interrogation. Therefore, I think that their participation cannot be justified by an increase in effectiveness. However, my decision would not change if the results of psychologist participation yielded significant results. I think that the moral obligations of this profession take precedence over the potential to improve interrogation outcomes.
The participation of psychologists in this process makes it clear that not every target is tortured “with justification”. Even if the psychologist does not directly inflict harm or goes out of their way to protect the suspect, their capacity of supporting the investigation should be questioned. Additionally, criminal charges are fabricated or incorrect in many cases, leading to innocent people being tortured (“Wrongful convictions,” 2022). This practice shows the limitations of the criminal system and highlights its flaws. If an individual is unsure whether their target can be reliably called a threat, the prospect of saving lives disappears as well. Lastly, medical professionals have an obligation to not harm their subjects, promote prosperity and wellness of others. Considering this, psychologists can be effectively applied in helping to promote the mental wellbeing and stability of interrogation subjects, as this work does not inflict harm upon them. This assessment is supported by the APA, which states that its members are required to monitor abuse (APA, 2007). Psychologists must do their utmost to follow these principles.
References
Speckhard, A. (2015). The Washington Post.
Wrongful convictions. (2022). Equal Justice Initiative.
APA. (2007). APA Rules on Interrogation Abuse. The Washington Post.
Munsey, C. (2008). The debate continues: Psychologists continue to discuss the field’s involvement in interrogations.