Persuasive Oral Presentation Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

Since I was a2a, what is acceptable for interview and interrogation has evolved with our understanding of socio-psychological pressures. In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that confession obtained through torture was unconstitutional. That led to a law professor (Inbau) and a former police officer (Reid) proposing use of psychological techniques in criminal interrogation (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000). Even after review of subsequent Supreme Court decisions allowing deceit and trickery that does not “‘shock the conscience’ of the court or the community” (p. 486), Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne (2004) presented what is arguably a relatively conservative approach to interrogation that does not endorse coercive interrogation. The tenets of those techniques, commonly referred to as the “Reid Technique,” remain widely recognized in law enforcement as a guide for interviews and interrogations in the United States.The fourth edition of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (Inbau, et al.) elucidated elements of the interrogation process, as differentiated from interview, to include, among other conceptualizations, configuration of the room, the necessity for establishing rapport, and behavioral analysis. They also provided a nine-step process for interrogation:Step 1 … A direct, positively presented confirmation of the suspect with a statement that he is considered to be the person who committed the offense. …Step 2 … The investigator expresses a supposition about the reason for the crime’s commission. …Step 3 … Suggested procedures for handling the initial denials of guilt. …Step 4 … Overcoming the suspect’s secondary line of defense following denial. …Step 5 … The investigator will clearly display a sincerity in what he says. …Step 6 … Recognizing the suspect’s passive mood. …Step 7 … Utilization of an alternative question—a suggestion of a choice to be made by the suspect concerning some aspect of the crime. …Step 8 … Having the suspect orally relate the various details about the offense that will serve ultimately to establish legal guilt.Step 9 … Converting an oral confession into a written one. (pp. 213-214)Several categories of false confessions are presented by Inbau et al. The coerced compliant confession involves threatened or actual assault, wherein there is true acknowledgement guilt. The voluntary false confession generally results from a desire for attention. The coerced internalized confession results from the interrogator convincing the suspect that they are guilty due to loss of memory of the event. The nonexistent confession may contain incriminating information, but does not include acceptance of guilt. Inbau et al. warned that unlawful duress, through deprivation of biological needs or lengthy interrogation, can be present as an unlawful form of coercion within as short a period as 30 minutes, if protestations of the suspect are ignored.Police interrogation is by its nature an adversarial process, and “no confession following interrogation is completely voluntary in the psychological sense of the word” (Inbau, et al., p. 417), and the extent of voluntariness is questionable based on the coercive tactics employed by the interrogator. Merely stating incontrovertible evidence does not amount to coercion. However, promises of leniency, particularly when coupled with a threat of increased punishment or even character assassination, can be construed as coercive. Appropriate interrogation involves persuasion and may incorporate incentives that are personally redemptive; such as reduction of stress associated with guilt by acceptance of repercussions, social benefits of accepting guilt, and learning from this mistake, thus avoiding future criminal behavior.Other incentives that can be used in a legal manner include: The ability to present a confession wherein the individual can control the narrative, gain vengeance against the system, provide the ability to disprove some allegations, or offer an expectation of leniency if guilt is accepted and remorse is expressed. However, solicitation of a confession in exchange for a promise of leniency exceeds the scope legitimacy. An ambiguous statement such as: “If this is something that happened on the spur of the moment, that would be important to include in my report” (p. 420), may be considered ambiguous, and therefore coercive; although, this was not interpreted as inducement of a false confession by the authors.Chapter 12 is titled The Use of Specialized Questioning Techniques (Inbau, et al.), and explains these techniques in detail. One technique is the “Baiting Technique,” wherein “the bait question is non-accusatory in nature but at the same time presents to the subject a plausible probability of the existence of some evidence implicating him in the crime” (p. 193). The intended purpose is to elicit an alteration of a previous statement assumed to be false; which would be characterized by the authors as a positive challenge. In recommending this technique, it is not intended that the interrogator confront the suspect with fabricated circumstantial or witness evidence. The difference being that a non-accusatory question would be something like: “Is there any reason your fingerprints were found;” as opposed to “your fingerprints were found.”The second specialized technique is: “Asking an Assumptive Question” to be “phrased in such a manner that there is a strong implication that the answer is already known, when in fact it is not” (p. 199). It should be noted that this technique does not include an assertion as to the actual behavior of the suspect, and caveats are provided. “The information sought by the question should not require a full confession from the subject;” such as, “’Where did you go after you raped that lady?’” (p. 201). And, the assumptive question should only be used when guilt has been reasonably established. A third specialized technique involves feigning ignorance as to a pertinent fact and offering the suspect to opportunity to lie.What appears to be an omission in the work of Inbau et al. is the propensity to inform on conspirators or associates in exchange for consideration pretrial and/or subsequent to conviction as provided for in Rule 35, under Title VII of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for providing substantive assistance in implicating others in criminal activity. The potential for personal gain through avoiding negative consequences seems a potential incentive for coerced confession or fabrication.Despite the work of Inbau et al. incorporating cautionary guidelines separating appropriate and unacceptable techniques, the psychological pressures induced by the Reid Technique have been subjected to criticism, such as expressed by the Supreme Court in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision, that contributed to the mandatory rights advisement for those in custody (Scheck, et al.); although, recommendations have no doubt evolved. And, Dr. David Canter, at the 17th Conference of the International Academy for Investigative Psychology (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, May 14, 2016) commented that the use of Reid Technique would be unacceptable in England.Many psychological and psychiatric professionals have become proponents of more humane interrogation, devoid of psychological techniques found to have been instrumental in the production of false statements, recognizing that false confession is a major contributor to false convictions. Scheck et al. reported that “DNA exonerations studied by the Innocence Project, 23 percent of the convictions were based on false confessions or admissions” (p. 92). Gudjonsson cited documentation of 125 proven false confessions between 1971 and 2002, and indicated that there is empirically supported argument “that subtle coercive influences in the criminal justice system should be a top priority of legal psychology in the 21st century” (2010, p. 32). There is also evidence that the accusatorial nature of police interrogation has been responsible for several hundred identified police-induced false confessions due to three critical errors: misclassification, coercion, and contamination (Leo & Drizin, 2010). …Once a response to assessment questioning has been elicited, there is a responsibility to evaluate the veracity of that response. According to Vrij (2008), meta-analysis has indicated that, on average, there was no difference between police investigators and laypersons in the ability to detect lies. Vrij et al. (2010) indicated that even the micro-expression techniques of Paul Ekman appear to be insignificant, and “the act of lying per se does not result in any nonverbal or speech-related cues to deceit” (p. 97). Therefore, once any statement is elicited, it can easily be accepted as truthful, unless one evaluates the totality of circumstances, to include what the interviewer has done to influence the responses.Robb, D. L. (2017). Assertive questioning in psychopathy assessment interview and correlation with false confession. Journal of Cold Case Review, 3(1), 14-24. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/28179676/Assertive_Questioning_in_Psychopathy_Assessment_Interview_and_Correlation_with_False_Confession

MBA offers an intensive introduction to management theory.Approaching business and management as a social science will allow you to critically address the challenges affecting organisations, while considering corporate social responsibility, ethics and environmental sustainability.Our emphasis on international context reflects the realities of the global economy in which organisations operate. Our staff and students are drawn from all over the world, and bring with them a panoply of perspectives which will inform and enrich your learning.The course will provide you with the knowledge and skills needed for management roles in private and public sector organisations. It can complement your existing knowledge and skills, even if you have no prior experience of business studies, and will significantly enhance your prospects for employment and career development.Christ University approachEvery course at York is built on a distinctive set of learning outcomes. These will give you a clear understanding of what you will be able to accomplish at the end of the course and help you explain what you can offer employers. Our academics identify the knowledge, skills, and experiences you'll need upon graduation and then design the course to get you there.Students who complete this course will be able to:Implement ethical, socially responsible, and internationally aware modes of management by utilising knowledge of contemporary issues in management theory and practice.Solve complex problems in a range of managerial settings by applying their understanding of international business, management, and the global economic and political environment.Critically evaluate complex business and management information by judging the quality of evidence, overcoming ambiguity by identifying gaps and inadequacies, and using rigorous and ethical methods to collect, collate and analyze relevant data.Communicate complex information persuasively by preparing structured arguments, drawing on relevant and appropriate evidence, in oral or written forms suitable for professional presentation in business and management contexts.Evaluate the opportunities and challenges involved in contemporary international management, across cultures.Independently investigate a significant problem in business or management, deploying appropriate research methods to present a sophisticated, substantial, in-depth critical analysis in written form.Engage in continuing professional development, drawing on up-to-date knowledge of ethical, socially responsible, and internationally aware management theories and practices in order to reflect on personal strengths and weaknesses and to identify areas for growth in their own knowledge and practice.Careers and skillsSkilled managers are needed in industries of all shapes and sizes. This course will provide you with the knowledge and skills needed for management roles in private and public sector organisations around the world.Our graduates go on to careers in all aspects of business and management. Each year, some continue their studies, joining Christ Univeristy doctoral programme.Career opportunitiesFinance and bankingLegal servicesManagement consultancyManufacturingNonprofit orgnisations and charitiesResearchRetailTranslationTransferable skillsCommunication skillsTeam workingPresentationCritical analysisCreative thinkingProject management

“Good” can be defined differently (elicitation of reliable information or just clearing a case), and even good techniques can produce bad results. Cognitive interviewing is generally accepted as an efficient means of obtaining accurate information from witnesses (recall of the environment, elicitation of details, repetition of details from differing perspectives, etc./ http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-interview.html). The same techniques could be used in interrogation, with the additional effort needed to identify discrepancies as challenge material. Even false amiability, sociability, and camaraderie employed in the rapport building element advocated in most interrogation training can elicit false admissions, and detecting deception is unreliable. Beyond that:What is acceptable for interview and interrogation has evolved with our understanding of socio-psychological pressures. In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that confession obtained through torture was unconstitutional. That led to a law professor (Inbau) and a former police officer (Reid) proposing use of psychological techniques in criminal interrogation (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000). Even after review of subsequent Supreme Court decisions allowing deceit and trickery that does not “‘shock the conscience’ of the court or the community” (p. 486), Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne (2004) presented what is arguably a relatively conservative approach to interrogation that does not endorse coercive interrogation. The tenets of those techniques, commonly referred to as the “Reid Technique,” remain widely recognized in law enforcement as a guide for interviews and interrogations in the United States.The fourth edition of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (Inbau, et al.) elucidated elements of the interrogation process, as differentiated from interview, to include, among other conceptualizations, configuration of the room, the necessity for establishing rapport, and behavioral analysis. They also provided a nine-step process for interrogation:Step 1 … A direct, positively presented confirmation of the suspect with a statement that he is considered to be the person who committed the offense. …Step 2 … The investigator expresses a supposition about the reason for the crime’s commission. …Step 3 … Suggested procedures for handling the initial denials of guilt. …Step 4 … Overcoming the suspect’s secondary line of defense following denial. …Step 5 … The investigator will clearly display a sincerity in what he says. …Step 6 … Recognizing the suspect’s passive mood. …Step 7 … Utilization of an alternative question—a suggestion of a choice to be made by the suspect concerning some aspect of the crime. …Step 8 … Having the suspect orally relate the various details about the offense that will serve ultimately to establish legal guilt.Step 9 … Converting an oral confession into a written one. (pp. 213-214)Several categories of false confessions are presented by Inbau et al. The coerced compliant confession involves threatened or actual assault, wherein there is true acknowledgement guilt. The voluntary false confession generally results from a desire for attention. The coerced internalized confession results from the interrogator convincing the suspect that they are guilty due to loss of memory of the event. The nonexistent confession may contain incriminating information, but does not include acceptance of guilt. Inbau et al. warned that unlawful duress, through deprivation of biological needs or lengthy interrogation, can be present as an unlawful form of coercion within as short a period as 30 minutes, if protestations of the suspect are ignored.Police interrogation is by its nature an adversarial process, and “no confession following interrogation is completely voluntary in the psychological sense of the word” (Inbau, et al., p. 417), and the extent of voluntariness is questionable based on the coercive tactics employed by the interrogator. Merely stating incontrovertible evidence does not amount to coercion. However, promises of leniency, particularly when coupled with a threat of increased punishment or even character assassination, can be construed as coercive. Appropriate interrogation involves persuasion and may incorporate incentives that are personally redemptive; such as reduction of stress associated with guilt by acceptance of repercussions, social benefits of accepting guilt, and learning from this mistake, thus avoiding future criminal behavior.Other incentives that can be used in a legal manner include: The ability to present a confession wherein the individual can control the narrative, gain vengeance against the system, provide the ability to disprove some allegations, or offer an expectation of leniency if guilt is accepted and remorse is expressed. However, solicitation of a confession in exchange for a promise of leniency exceeds the scope legitimacy. An ambiguous statement such as: “If this is something that happened on the spur of the moment, that would be important to include in my report” (p. 420), may be considered ambiguous, and therefore coercive; although, this was not interpreted as inducement of a false confession by the authors.Chapter 12 is titled The Use of Specialized Questioning Techniques (Inbau, et al.), and explains these techniques in detail. One technique is the “Baiting Technique,” wherein “the bait question is non-accusatory in nature but at the same time presents to the subject a plausible probability of the existence of some evidence implicating him in the crime” (p. 193). The intended purpose is to elicit an alteration of a previous statement assumed to be false; which would be characterized by the authors as a positive challenge. In recommending this technique, it is not intended that the interrogator confront the suspect with fabricated circumstantial or witness evidence. The difference being that a non-accusatory question would be something like: “Is there any reason your fingerprints were found;” as opposed to “your fingerprints were found.”The second specialized technique is: “Asking an Assumptive Question” to be “phrased in such a manner that there is a strong implication that the answer is already known, when in fact it is not” (p. 199). It should be noted that this technique does not include an assertion as to the actual behavior of the suspect, and caveats are provided. “The information sought by the question should not require a full confession from the subject;” such as, “’Where did you go after you raped that lady?’” (p. 201). And, the assumptive question should only be used when guilt has been reasonably established. A third specialized technique involves feigning ignorance as to a pertinent fact and offering the suspect to opportunity to lie.What appears to be an omission in the work of Inbau et al. is the propensity to inform on conspirators or associates in exchange for consideration pretrial and/or subsequent to conviction as provided for in Rule 35, under Title VII of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for providing substantive assistance in implicating others in criminal activity. The potential for personal gain through avoiding negative consequences seems a potential incentive for coerced confession or fabrication.Despite the work of Inbau et al. incorporating cautionary guidelines separating appropriate and unacceptable techniques, the psychological pressures induced by the Reid Technique have been subjected to criticism, such as expressed by the Supreme Court in the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision, that contributed to the mandatory rights advisement for those in custody (Scheck, et al.); although, recommendations have no doubt evolved. And, Dr. David Canter, at the 17th Conference of the International Academy for Investigative Psychology (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, May 14, 2016) commented that the use of Reid Technique would be unacceptable in England.Many psychological and psychiatric professionals have become proponents of more humane interrogation, devoid of psychological techniques found to have been instrumental in the production of false statements, recognizing that false confession is a major contributor to false convictions. Scheck et al. reported that “DNA exonerations studied by the Innocence Project, 23 percent of the convictions were based on false confessions or admissions” (p. 92). Gudjonsson cited documentation of 125 proven false confessions between 1971 and 2002, and indicated that there is empirically supported argument “that subtle coercive influences in the criminal justice system should be a top priority of legal psychology in the 21st century” (2010, p. 32). There is also evidence that the accusatorial nature of police interrogation has been responsible for several hundred identified police-induced false confessions due to three critical errors: misclassification, coercion, and contamination (Leo & Drizin, 2010). …Once a response to assessment questioning has been elicited, there is a responsibility to evaluate the veracity of that response. According to Vrij (2008), meta-analysis has indicated that, on average, there was no difference between police investigators and laypersons in the ability to detect lies. Vrij et al. (2010) indicated that even the micro-expression techniques of Paul Ekman appear to be insignificant, and “the act of lying per se does not result in any nonverbal or speech-related cues to deceit” (p. 97). Therefore, once any statement is elicited, it can easily be accepted as truthful, unless one evaluates the totality of circumstances, to include what the interviewer has done to influence the responses.Robb, D. L. (2016). Assertive Questioning in Psychopathy Assessment Interview and Correlation with False Confession. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/28179676/Assertive_Questioning_in_Psychopathy_Assessment_Interview_and_Correlation_with_False_Confession_Assertive_Questioning_in_Psychopathy_Assessment_Interview_and_Correlation_with_False_Confession