Why should interviewers avoid promises or threats to influence a suspect?

Why should interviewers avoid promises or threats to influence a suspect?

• A. Promises or threats can render statements involuntary, compromise voluntariness, and lead to unreliable confessions; may render statements inadmissible.
• B. They help secure faster confessions.
• C. They improve accuracy.
• D. They have no impact.

Answer: (A)

Prominence in voluntary confession comes from free will, not pressure. Promises of leniency or threats of harm are coercive, pushing a suspect to talk rather than guiding them to reveal the truth. When pressure shapes the decision to confess, the statement is considered involuntary and its reliability is suspect, because it may reflect the interrogation conditions more than the actual facts. Legally, such coerced statements can be excluded or deemed inadmissible, since the integrity of the evidence is compromised. That’s why interviewers should avoid any promises or threats and instead rely on noncoercive techniques, clear rights, and fair questioning. It’s not that promises or threats speed things or improve accuracy; they tend to produce unreliable confessions and undermine the investigation.