That's the core of the Reid technique, isn't it? Here's two rationales, one socially acceptable and one socially unacceptable. Pick one.

We don't actually care which one you pick, because a confession is still a confession, but we're handing you a convenient narrative you can use to justify your actions (a carrot), and an alternative people might believe about you if you don't pick Box A (a stick).

Something similar happens in high-pressure sales. I bet those guys would make great interrogators.

>In 1955 in Lincoln, Nebraska, John E. Reid helped gain a confession from a suspect, Darrel Parker, for Parker's wife's murder. This case established Reid's reputation and popularized his technique.[3] Parker recanted his confession the next day, but it was admitted to evidence at his trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was later determined to be innocent, after another man confessed and was found to have been the perpetrator. Parker sued the state for wrongful conviction; it paid him $500,000 in compensation.[4]

footnote: and regardless of innocence, you will be running from the arrest the rest of your life.

Will this information be useful to you? I believe it well could be. It's hard to explain exactly how/why without actually going through the experience though. And the verdict will still depend on many factors, many of which will be out of your control. But a few insights into the deep inner details of the process might be enough to tip the odds in your favor if things are close to begin with.

Another thing I'll add: a good lawyer really helps. The case I was on, the defense attorney was just totally on-point and absolutely "nailed it". Every single time - EVERY time - a witness for the prosecution said something questionable, or contradictory, or that in any way exposed a possible hole in the prosecution's story, he was all over it. By halfway through the trial I was rooting for the guy because watching him work was like watching a maestro in action. Hell, in the jury room during deliberations, we were all joking about how "If I'm ever on trial for a serious crime, I want this guy defending me."

That said, there's always an element of luck involved. In this case, I'm pretty sure the defendant was guilty. But I mean "pretty sure" in the sense that my subjective Bayesian posterior for "guilty" would be more than 50%... but the prosecution definitely did not prove he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". And aside from the skillful performance of the defense attorney pointing out holes in the story being told by the prosecution, was the simple fact that there were holes. And part of that was because the investigators were bumbling and incompetent, borderline "Barney Fife" or "Officer Barbrady" types. To the point that in the jury room during deliberations, we were joking about how "If I'm ever under investigation for a serious crime, I hope this guy is leading the investigation." A better investigation might well has resulted in a guilty verdict, but as it was we acquitted the guy.

Another observation: the defendant took the stand to testify. Usually not recommended for criminal defendants, but it worked for him. Why? Well, not so much because of what he said or didn't say, but because the prosecutor acted like a dick towards the guy, belittling him and demeaning him, talking down to him, and just generally being a prick. Now strictly speaking, none of that had anything to do with whether the defendant was guilty or not. But it created sympathy for the defendant, and the prosecutor basically turned himself into the villain. Did if affect the outcome? TBH, yeah, I think it kinda did. Things were close as it was, and that little bit of extra sympathy might easily have been the deciding factor. But the thing is, this is one of those "things that are outside of your control" if you're ever on trial. Maybe your prosecutor will be more professional and under control. Not much you can do about that. But just seeing how emotional aspects like "sympathy for the defendant" CAN play into a decision can be valuable, I believe.

Anyway... sorry for the long rant. I'll just say that if you ever get invited to jury selection, I'd encourage you to NOT try to "get out of it".

Are jurists more likely to commit crimes that they’ve presided over? Do they absorb any knowledge from the cases they decide that enables them to love a life of crime?

Muwahahahahahaha...

What was the crime being prosecuted?

Stealing a flashlight and a radio from a cop car, basically. The funny part is, that's the bit that I'm "fairly sure" the guy was really guilty of. But they also threw in some hinky claim about him stealing a chainsaw and a shotgun and some other stuff from a truck that was parked nearby (this was all at the officer's house). And for the most part, none of us on the jury believed he stole the chainsaw and the shotgun... in fact, we mostly think there never was a chainsaw or a shotgun. Because this guy was on foot, drunk, in the middle of winter, and was somehow able to carry a flashlight, a radio, a shotgun, and a chainsaw off to some safe hiding spot? From which they were never recovered? But he was found wandering on the side of the road later that morning with the radio and the flashlight? Hmm... so yeah, where did the gun and the chainsaw go???

Anyway, basically we thought they tried to "pile on" this guy with some made up bullshit, and that also probably helped us make the decision to acquit him, even if he was guilty of the radio and flashlight bit. And that played in with the prosecutor acting like such an ass to the guy and made the defendant seem like the victim.

Funny thing: after the case was over, they asked the jurors to hang around for a while (voluntarily) and talk to both the defense attorney and the prosecutor about how we reached our decision. And I actually told the prosecutor "dude, you were a total dick to that guy and made yourself look really bad by doing so". He said it was kind of personal with him and that guy, because the guy is a repeat offender and he's tried him like a dozen times. Now whether or not that supports a belief that they tried to set him up on some extra bogus charges I'm not sure, and I didn't ask about that. But man, oh man, did I learn that weird shit goes on that most people never see or hear about.

And of course there was the mysteriously malfunctioning dash-cam that didn't record any audio when the first officer approached the guy when he saw him on the side of the road, and the mysteriously missing 911 audio recordings of the guy supposedly keying up the radio and talking into it, etc., etc. And the fact that the cop car that the stuff was stolen from was left unlocked, and was un-monitored for like 11 hours from the time the officer got home from work until he got up to leave for work the next morning and found the radio and flashlight missing. And the absolute lack of physical evidence (fingerprints, footprints, eyewitnesses, anything) outside of him being seen carrying the missing radio and flashlight (he claimed he found both lying on the side of the road).

Like I said, there were serious holes in their case to leave room for "reasonable doubt" even though the guy was "probably" guilty.

Completely unethical and possibly malicious prosecution. Amazing.

My jaw is on the floor.

Here in Blighty, a jury deliberates in absolute secrecy. Revealing jury deliberations, even after the verdict, is a serious offence.

Yes, but as you note, the point is to make it sound like barely a confession, the minimum possible confession. This makes it just as attractive to the innocent as for the guilty. It's offering a minimally painful way out of a deeply stressful situation.

And as you say, the punchline is that not confessing would lead to minimal or no pain, and every level of confession will equally turn out much worse. An innocent person is just trying to escape from that room, and is being conned into agreeing to a long prison sentence in order to do it.

If you were going to buy a car today sir, would your budget be above or below $40k?

Maybe on the context of US criminal interrogators, where discovering what actually happened isn't one of the goals.

Without question. The best, most accurate, and most comprehensive texts I ever read about how to go about manipulating people was a series of books aimed at car salesmen. To the degree that "mind control" is a thing, these books were clear how-to guides.

And they convinced me to never talk to a car salesman.

This is why if you detect any nonsense like this, you should always remember that at any time in a car buying transaction, you can just walk.

Not just with cars!

It’s a weird place to be when you are rooting for the child molester/arsonist/muderer hoping they’d come to their sense and fucking CALL A LAWER YOU FUCKING IDIOT and SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!

But oddly, I guess maybe it’s a good thing “rape the kids and wife, shoot them point blank and burn the house down” criminals are too stupid to exercise such a basic right. Even the scummiest of police investigators give these people the option to shut the fuck up and call the lawyer. Sure the person might have to wait an obscenely long time before the lawyer shows up but they still are given the out yet these moron criminals think they can outsmart a highly trained police interrogator and choose to dig their holes.

Usually these people already dug their hole well before they are drug into the police station though. The on the ground evidence usually pretty much points to them already. All the confession does is save the state millions of dollars taxpayer money with courtroom proceedings.

So yeah… really mixed on the whole topic. Of course these videos on YouTube are selected to be the most interesting of the bunch. There are probably a hundred more mundane interrogations that go unseen for every one that makes it to a widely subscribed YouTube channel.

It's possible I just haven't watched enough of them, but I've never seen that. Usually the interviewer is a calm and dispassionate Columbo type who asks clarifying questions and then lets the suspects slowly trap themselves in their own web of lies. It is fascinating to watch.

That said, even though I have a healthy respect for the criminal justice system, I will still NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer. (Whether or not I've committed a crime.)

This loses its ability to inspire awe when you watch a video of one of these where you know the subject is actually innocent and the interviewer manages to also catch them in their own web of lies and make them look and sound guilty.

So rounds of intense questioning on the same subject infect any recollection of the experience someone has - amplifying or even adding events which didn't exist due to the focus of it.

And this has very real consequences - it was one of the driving forces of the satanic panic in in the 1980s[1] - for which people went to jail on the basis of "recovered memories".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

This is not to challenge anything you said, but you have two rights here: the first is to have a lawyer present while you are being questioned, the second (and more important right) is the right to remain silent.

Talking to a lawyer is obviously a good idea if you are in any sort of legal predicament. Even if you were not arrested or charged, but have certain legal obligations or are considering signing a binding contract etc.

But when it comes to police "interviewing" you, you don't even have to go as far as to ask for a lawyer. You can simply leave it at "I don't want to talk to you." Even THEN you don't have to go that far. You can literally communicate absolutely nothing. Catatonic non-responsiveness is not a crime. This applies whether or not you are under arrest or being detained. You can always refuse to speak. That is your constitutionally protected right.

The bottom line is that these interviews are all recorded and the police are well aware that if they make a misstep and if the defense has a competent lawyer, they may inadvertently set a thief, killer, or rapist free if they are not extremely careful in their questioning and processes.