Editing Reid technique (section)

== Process ==
{{more citations needed|section||date=October 2019}}
The Reid technique consists of a three-phase process beginning with fact analysis, followed by the behavior analysis interview (a non-accusatory interview designed to develop investigative and behavioral information),<ref name="starr" /> followed, when appropriate, by the Reid nine steps of interrogation. According to process guidelines, individuals should be interrogated only when the information developed from the interview and investigation indicate that the subject is involved in the commission of the crime.

In the Reid technique, interrogation is an accusatory process, in which the investigator tells the suspect that the results of the investigation clearly indicate that they did commit the crime in question.<ref name="starr" /> The interrogation is in the form of a [[monologue]] presented by the investigator rather than a question and answer format. The demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. The Reid technique user's goal is to make the suspect gradually more comfortable with telling the truth. This is accomplished by the investigator's first imagining and then offering the suspect various psychological [[Social constructionism|constructs]] as justification for their behavior.

For example, an admission of guilt might be prompted by the question, "Did you plan this out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?" This is called an alternative question, which is based on an [[implicit assumption]] of guilt. 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.

=== Nine steps of interrogation ===
The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:<ref>{{cite book |first1=David E. |last1=Zulawski |first2=Douglas E. |last2=Wicklander |year=2001 |title=Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation |location=Ann Arbor |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-0-8493-0101-8}}</ref>

# Positive confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
# Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
# Try to minimize the frequency of suspect denials.
# At this point, the accused will often give a reason why they did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the acknowledgement of what they did.
# Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
# The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme of the discussion toward offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
# Pose the "alternative question", giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
# Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
# Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).