Criticism has also been leveled in the opposite case—that against strong-willed interviewees, the technique causes them to stop talking and give no information whatsoever, rather than elicit lies that can be checked against for the guilty or exonerating details for the innocent.
[2] In 1931, the Wickersham Commission report, "Lawlessness in Law Enforcement", showed that violent forms of interrogation (known as the "third degree" after investigation and interview) were widespread but actually reduced crime-solving by causing false confessions.
For the third edition in 1953, Inbau invited John Reid as co-author, for a new section on so-called lie detector techniques, such as the "control question".
[6] Fred E. Inbau, a Northwestern University lawyer and criminologist, and John E. Reid, a law graduate who had worked in the Chicago Police Department, would publish other manuals together.
[11] Its famous Miranda v. Arizona warnings were made in large part in response to the psychological subjugation and risks of the Reid techniques.
Critics regard this strategy as hazardous, arguing that it is subject to confirmation bias (likely to reinforce inaccurate beliefs or assumptions) and may lead to prematurely narrowing an investigation.
[2] Several European countries prohibit some interrogation techniques that are currently allowed in the United States, such as a law enforcement officer lying to a suspect about evidence, due to the perceived risk of false confessions and wrongful convictions that might result, particularly with juveniles.
[21] In Canada, provincial court judge Mike Dinkel ruled in 2012 that "stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession".
[23] Abuses of interrogation methods include officers treating accused suspects aggressively and telling them lies about the amount of evidence proving their guilt.
Such exaggerated claims of evidence, such as video or genetics, have the potential, when combined with such coercive tactics as threats of harm or promises of leniency, to cause innocent suspects to become psychologically overwhelmed.
[24][25] In 2015, eight organizations, including John E. Reid & Associates, settled with Juan Rivera, who was wrongfully convicted of the 1992 rape and murder of 11-year-old Holly Staker.
A number of pieces of evidence excluded Rivera, including DNA from the PERK (Physical Evidence Recovery Kit) and the report from the electronic ankle monitor he was wearing at the time, as he awaited trial for a non-violent burglary, but he falsely confessed to the Staker crimes after being interrogated by the police several days after taking two polygraph examinations at Reid & Associates.
[26] The PEACE (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate)[27] model developed in Britain "encourages more of a dialogue between investigator and suspect".