Your text provides a detailed overview of obtaining information from criminal suspects including a variety of recommended techniques for interviewing and interrogation. As the text denotes, an investigator often utilizes different styles or approaches when conducting a suspect interview (I am not fond of the word "interrogation" by the way as it holds a negative connotation), none of which involve the use of corporal punishment or techniques that in some ways, could be viewed as violations of inherent individual/Constitutional rights. There are however, several techniques routinely practiced in suspect interviews that some might view as borderline "unreasonable" in regards to violating a suspect's inherent rights to self-incrimination. These would include:

• Lying to a suspect to elicit a confession,
• Telling the suspect that a co-defendant has already confessed or has implicated him/her in the crime,
• Advising the suspect that you have evidence that you don't (DNA, Video),
• Providing false results from a polygraph or CVSA exam,
• Showing graphic crime scene photos to a suspect,
• Conducting interviews that last6 or more hours,
• Threatening a stiffer sentence of incarceration if a confession isn't given,
• Pretending to empathize with or befriending the suspect and stating that you understand and agree with why they committed the crime and can understand, maybe even agree with their reasoning

All of the above have been ruled upon by trial and appellate courts (including the US Supreme Court) as acceptable techniques that can be utilized in suspect interviews depending on the circumstances of the interview and investigation. My question for you this week is this... which of the above techniques, if any, do you feel are unethical or "cross the line" when it comes to potentially violating an individual's constitutional rights? Do the courts have it wrong here on any one of the techniques in your opinion? If so, why? Should it, or does it matter who the person is or the crime they are suspected of committing? What if the person is a career criminal? What if the victim of the crime was a young child who was brutally raped and murdered? What if there is little or no physical evidence or witnesses and your entire investigation is dependent on a suspect confession? I realize that this is a very hypothetical question and that each case and investigation is different however I am curious to learn your views on this topic and see where you stand in this regard. As someone who has conducted hundreds of suspect interviews over the years, I can attest that not only have I utilized many of the above techniques, they often helped in eliciting a suspect confession. That doesn't mean however, that you have to agree with, accept, and/or utilize the practices in your future careers. It should be noted though, and as a reminder, suspect interviews do not occur unless there is related evidence or victim/witness statements to show the person is culpable to some degree or involved in the crime and/or related incident. These techniques are not utilized on witnesses or victims but only on persons who an investigator is fairly certain based on relating evidence that he/she is guilty or very likely as such.