Abstract
This essay explores the contentious issue of lying to subjects during interviews and interrogations. A comprehensive analysis of ethical theories, legal frameworks, and practical implications is provided, reflecting on whether the nature of the conversation (interview vs. interrogation) impacts the ethical permissibility of deceit. Three references are cited, highlighting different perspectives and underpinning the analysis with scholarly insight.
Keywords: Deceptive practices, interviews, interrogations, and ethical considerations
Introduction
In both interviews and interrogations, honesty is a foundational principle guiding all parties’ conduct. This principle, cherished and adhered to by many, often comes into question when examining the tactics used to extract information. It raises an ethical dilemma: whether it is acceptable to lie to subjects during an interview or an interrogation. The complexity of this issue does not allow for a simple answer, and the differing contexts and purposes of interviews and interrogations further complicate the matter. Consequently, this topic warrants an in-depth investigation that explores the legal, ethical, and practical dimensions of deception in these distinct yet interrelated scenarios.
Ethical Considerations in Interviews
Honesty as a Guiding Principle
Honesty is widely accepted as a cornerstone of ethical interviews, serving as a guiding principle that shapes the interaction between interviewer and interviewee. The commitment to truthfulness fosters trust and facilitates the free exchange of information, essential for a productive dialogue. However, misleading or lying to a subject can gravely compromise the integrity of the information obtained. Such deception not only jeopardizes the validity of the responses but can also irreparably damage the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee, eroding the trust that is vital to the process. These ethical considerations have been extensively documented and debated, with scholars like Deeb et al. (2020) highlighting the long-term implications of dishonest tactics within interview settings.
Contextual Differences
In professional settings, such as journalistic or academic interviews, lying is considered unethical and contrary to these fields’ established norms. In journalism, for instance, the pursuit of truth is paramount, and deception would undermine the credibility of the journalist and the media outlet. In academic interviews, lying can compromise research integrity, leading to skewed results and potential mistrust in scholarly work. These professional contexts place a high value on transparency and trust, as they are foundational to the relationships built with subjects and audiences (Fengler & Speck, 2019). This demand for honesty and openness sets the ethical boundaries in these specific settings, emphasizing the role of truthfulness in building and maintaining professional integrity.
Ethical Considerations in Interrogations
Legal Frameworks
Legal frameworks in the context of interrogations present an intricate landscape that intertwines legality and ethics. Lying’s legality in interrogations varies across jurisdictions, leading to intense debates about its ethical implications (Meissner et al., 2017). Some legal systems permit deceptive tactics, justifying them as necessary for information extraction, while others firmly prohibit such practices. This divide underscores the complexity of balancing permissible techniques with ethical considerations, revealing the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of acceptable conduct during interrogations. Whether truth manipulation serves justice or undermines, it remains a central point of contention.
Impact on Results
The repercussions of employing deception in interviews and interrogations extend beyond the immediate exchange of information. The validity of information procured through deceptive tactics often emerges as a substantial concern, casting doubt upon the accuracy and reliability of the obtained data. False confessions, extracted under duress or manipulated circumstances, are a prime example of the potential pitfalls of such practices. The distortion of the truth can lead to the dissemination of inaccurate or fabricated details, which can mislead investigations, sway legal outcomes, and foster unjust convictions. The risk of generating erroneous information through deceit underscores the grave responsibility interviewers and interrogators carry in ensuring the veracity of collected data and guarding against the unintentional perpetuation of miscarriages of justice.
Comparison: Interview vs. Interrogation
The comparison between interviews and interrogations reveals a pivotal distinction in the ethical evaluation of deception. The permissibility of lying hinges significantly on the contextual nuances inherent to each scenario. In interviews, characterized by an emphasis on collaboration, mutual understanding, and trust, lying is generally met with condemnation. This perspective aligns with the foundational principles of honest discourse, where information exchange thrives on a foundation of transparency. Maintaining open lines of communication fosters an environment where subjects willingly share their insights, experiences, and perspectives. Deception in such a setting can erode the trust necessary for fruitful engagement, potentially leading to the distortion of information and a compromised exchange that defeats the purpose of the interview.
Conversely, interrogations introduce a more intricate ethical landscape due to the elevated stakes of extracting critical information. In these situations, the answer to whether lying is permissible becomes muddied by the complexities surrounding the pursuit of justice and safety. Interrogations often occur within legal contexts where the potential consequences are profound, such as in law enforcement investigations. Here, the need to extract vital information, especially in cases involving public safety or criminal activity, has led to a debate over whether the ends justify certain deceptive means. The gravity of potential outcomes introduces a layer of ethical complexity, prompting consideration of whether limited deception might yield invaluable information that could avert harm or uncover the truth. Consequently, while the condemnation of lying remains relevant, the ethical calculus is nuanced. It requires an examination of the specific circumstances, the potential risks, and the broader implications for justice and public welfare.
Conclusion
The ethical considerations surrounding lying during interviews and interrogations are multifaceted. While lying in interviews is generally considered unethical, the issue becomes more nuanced in interrogations. Legal frameworks, societal values, and the potential consequences of deceptive practices must be weighed carefully. A commitment to honesty and transparency is the safest approach to maintaining ethical integrity in both contexts.
References
Deeb, H., Vrij, A., & Leal, S. (2020). The effects of a model statement on information elicitation and deception detection in multiple interviews. Acta Psychologica, 207, 103080. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000169181930263X
Fengler, S., & Speck, D. (2019). Journalism and transparency: A mass communications perspective. Contested transparencies, social movements, and the public sphere: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, 119-149. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-23949-7_6
Meissner, C. A., Surmon-Böhr, F., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Alison, L. J. (2017). Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the US government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 438. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-49224-003
write