Respond to the post below. Expand on their ideas and discuss the differences between your thoughts and theirs. Explain why you agree or disagree.

Interviews and interrogations are critical techniques used in law enforcement and investigative processes, but they serve different purposes and are conducted in distinct ways. Understanding the differences and similarities between the two can enhance the effectiveness of an investigation (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013).Interviews are generally non-accusatory conversations aimed at gathering information. They can be conducted with witnesses, victims, or suspects and are usually open-ended, allowing the subject to freely share their account of events. The interviewer's role is to listen, ask follow-up questions, and clarify details. The interview environment is typically less formal and non-confrontational, intending to build rapport and encourage the subject to speak candidly.

Interrogations, conversely, are accusatory and are specifically used when the interviewer believes the subject is involved in or knows critical information about a crime. The primary goal of an interrogation is to obtain a confession or admission of guilt. Interrogations are more structured and controlled, often involving tactics to elicit the truth from the suspect, such as presenting evidence or inconsistencies in their story. The environment is usually more tense, and the interrogator may adopt a firmer tone (Inbau et al., 2013).The decision to interview an interrogation depends on the stage of the investigation and the subject's role. Interviews are typically the first step used to gather information and establish facts. Interviewing before an interrogation has several benefits. It allows the investigator to obtain a baseline of the subject's story, observe their demeanor, and gather details that can be cross-checked during an interrogation. Additionally, interviews can sometimes lead to confessions without needing a more confrontational interrogation (Deslauriers-Varin, 2022).

By contrast, an interrogation is used when sufficient evidence suggests the subject is withholding the truth. However, jumping straight to an interrogation without an initial interview can lead to missed details and reduce the effectiveness of the interrogation, as the investigator may lack critical information that could be used to challenge the suspect (Inbau et al., 2013).In the context of an interview or interrogation, when studies suggest that a truthful victim's account will adhere to normal human behavior for both the victim and the assailant, it means that the details provided by the victim should make sense within the context of how people typically behave in real-life situations. A truthful account should reflect realistic emotional and physical responses. For instance, if a victim describes feeling fear, shock, or pain, these emotions should align with their situation.

Similarly, the assailant's actions should follow typical human behavior patterns, such as a logical sequence of aggression or coercion.The sequence of events should be plausible. If a victim describes an event where the actions are consistent with how people usually react in high-stress or threatening situations, this is a sign of truthfulness. A truthful account will usually have a logical flow. The actions of both the victim and the assailant should follow a cause-and-effect pattern that makes sense in the context of the situation.While trauma can affect memory, a truthful account often includes specific details that make sense within the context of the event. These details should be consistent with what is known about human behavior in similar situations, even if some aspects are fragmented or vague due to the traumatic nature of the experience. This might raise red flags if the account includes highly unusual or unlikely behavior in the given context (Deslauriers-Varin, 2022).

Overall, the interviewer should seek a narrative that aligns with how people typically behave under stress, fear, or threat. Deviations from these patterns may warrant further scrutiny to determine the credibility (Inbau et al., 2013).In summary, while both interviews and interrogations are essential investigative tools, they serve different purposes and are best used sequentially, with interviews laying the groundwork for successful interrogations.