Editing Reid technique (section)

== Validity ==
Critics claim the technique too easily produces [[false confession]]s,<ref>{{cite journal| last1=Kassin |first1=S. M. |last2=Appleby |first2=S. C. |last3=Perillo |first3=J. T. |title=Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions |journal=Legal and Criminological Psychology |date=February 2010 |volume=15 |pages=39–55 |doi=10.1348/135532509X449361|doi-access=free }} ([http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/K-A-P%2009.pdf preprint])</ref> especially with juveniles,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Drizin |first1=S. A. |last2=Leo |first2=R. A. |year=2004 |title=The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world |url=https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol82/iss3/3/ |journal=North Carolina Law Review |volume=82 |pages=891–1007}} ([http://www.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/drizenl.leo.04.pdf preprint])</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Beck |first=Susan |title=Saving Anthony Harris |url=http://www.americanlawyer-digital.com/americanlawyer-ipauth/tal200903ip?folio=8&pg=78#pg78 |journal=The American Lawyer |volume=XXXI |number=3 |date=March 2009 |pages=76–79, 90}} [http://www.reid.com/pdfs/harris2009.pdf Online at John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.]</ref> with second-language speakers in their non-native language,<ref>{{cite web |title=''Gonzales v. State of Nevada'' |url=http://www.reid.com/pdfs/summer2015/Gonzales.pdf |publisher=Westlaw |access-date=26 February 2019 |archive-date=October 20, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161020103821/http://www.reid.com/pdfs/summer2015/Gonzales.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> and with people whose communication/language abilities are affected by [[Developmental disability|mental disabilities]], including reduced intellectual capacity.<ref name="Georgetown University Law Center">{{cite journal |last1=Rogal |first1=Lauren |date=Winter 2017 |title=Protecting Persons with Mental Disabilities from Making False Confessions: The Americans with Disabilities Act as a Safeguard |url=https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol47/iss1/4/ |journal=New Mexico Law Review |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=64–98 |access-date=26 February 2019}}</ref> While this criticism acknowledges that the technique can be "effective" in producing confessions, it is not accurate at getting guilty parties to confess, instead sweeping up people pushed to their mental limits by stress. Critics also dislike how police often apply the technique on subjects of unclear guilt, when simply gathering more information in non-stressful interrogations can be more useful both for convicting guilty suspects and exonerating innocent suspects.<ref name="wired" />

Of 311 people exonerated through post-conviction [[DNA]] testing, more than a quarter had given false confessions—including those convicted in such notorious cases as the [[Central Park jogger case|Central Park Five]].<ref name="starr"/>

Some of the more minor details Reid propounded have since been called into question as well. For example, Reid believed that "tells" such as fidgeting was a [[lie detection|sign of lying]], and more generally believed that trained police interrogators could intuitively check lies merely by how they were delivered. Later studies have shown no useful correlation between any sort of body movements such as breaking eye contact or fidgeting and truth-telling. While police can be effective at cracking lies, it is via gathering contradicting evidence; police officers have been shown in studies to be no better than average people at detecting lies merely from their delivery.<ref name="wired" />

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 conviction]]s that might result, particularly with juveniles.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Vrij |first1=A. |year=1998 |chapter=Interviewing Suspects |editor1-first=A. |editor1-last=Memon |editor2-first=A. |editor2-last=Vrij |editor3-first=R. |editor3-last=Bull |title=Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility |location=Maidenhead, UK |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=9780077093167 |oclc=924932857 |pages=124–144}}</ref> For example, §136a of the German {{lang|de|{{ill2|Strafprozessordnung|de|Strafprozessordnung (Deutschland)}}}} (StPO, "code of criminal procedure") bans the use of deception and intimidation in interrogations; the Reid method also conflicts with the German police's obligation to adequately inform the suspect of their [[Right to silence#Germany|right to silence]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Steinert |first=Ulf |date=2010 |title=Kriminalistik/Kriminaltechnik Skriptum: Vernehmungslehre |url=http://gletschertraum.de/Lehrmaterialien/10Vernehmungslehre_Skriptum.pdf |publisher=Brandenburg State Police Academy and College|language=de |access-date=1 June 2018}}</ref>

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".<ref name=canada2012>{{cite news |last=Quan |first=Douglas |date=September 10, 2012 |title=Judge's ruling finds widely used police interrogation technique 'oppressive' |url=http://www.canada.com/Judge+ruling+finds+widely+used+police+interrogation+technique+oppressive/7220193/story.html |publisher=[[Canada.com]]}}</ref>

In December 2013, an unredacted copy of a secret [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] interrogation manual was discovered in the [[Library of Congress]], available for public view. The manual confirmed [[American Civil Liberties Union]] concerns that FBI agents used the Reid technique in interrogations.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Baumann |first=Nick |date=December 20, 2013 |title=You'll never guess where this FBI agent left a secret interrogation manual |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/fbi-copyrighted-interrogation-manual-unredacted-secrets/ |magazine=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref>

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.<ref name="CBC_2003">{{cite news |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/widely-used-police-interrogation-technique-can-result-in-false-confession-disclosure-1.389125 |title=Widely used police interrogation technique can result in false confession: Disclosure |publisher=[[CBC News]] |date=January 28, 2003 |access-date=July 30, 2015}}</ref><ref name="PEACE_2015">{{cite news |last=Quan |first=Douglas |date=July 30, 2015 |title=RCMP adopts gentler grilling of suspects |url=https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/rcmp-adopts-gentler-grilling-of-suspects |work=[[The StarPhoenix]] |location=Saskatoon |access-date=January 13, 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, eight organizations, including John E. Reid & Associates, settled with [[Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction)|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. After his exoneration, Rivera filed a suit for false arrest and [[malicious prosecution]]. The case was settled out of court with John E. Reid & Associates paying $2 million.<ref name=Starr>{{cite magazine |last1=Starr |first1=Douglas |date=May 22, 2015 |title=Juan Rivera and the Dangers of Coercive Interrogation|url=http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/juan-rivera-and-the-dangers-of-coercive-interrogation |magazine=The New Yorker}}</ref>

===Alternative models===
The [[PEACE method of interrogation|PEACE]] (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate)<ref>{{Cite news |first=Terry |last=Gross |author-link=Terry Gross |date=December 5, 2013 |title=Beyond Good Cop/Bad Cop: A Look at Real-Life Interrogations |url=https://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations |work=[[Fresh Air]] |publisher=[[NPR]] |access-date=October 13, 2016}}</ref> model developed in Britain "encourages more of a dialogue between investigator and suspect".<ref name="PEACE_2015"/>

In 2015, the [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police]] adopted a new standard influenced by the PEACE model. Sergeant Darren Carr, who trains police with the new approach, described it as "less [[Kojak]] and more [[Dr. Phil]]". This approach eschews the use of deceptive information to overwhelm suspects. It emphasizes information gathering over eliciting confessions and discourages investigators from presuming a suspect's guilt.<ref name="PEACE_2015"/>