About the blog
Let's say someone was given the job of interviewing several people. The reason for which is to determine who's responsible for... could be anything.. say a theft of someone's personal property.
We can add some details to this hypothetical scenario so the interviewer has something to start from. But we won't add too many. The job of determining who stole what isn't easy in real life so we shouldn't cut corners on this one.
But easy or not, what's at stake is determining the truth.
These details make up the hypothetical scenario:
- Items were stolen from a residence (type of residence is not specified).
- Items were stolen while the resident was away (how long they were away is not specified).
- Resident realized items were missing at some point after they returned (whether that was immediately or over time is not specified).
Given these mostly vague details with few specifics, how could someone interview a list of people to determine what happened?
What if there was a way to do it that only allowed the person being interviewed to answer what they know and nothing else? Something like that could kill the murder mystery genre of TV shows with one punch.
If this "ultimate interrogation technique" existed it would have to work simply. A question would be asked and the response could be something like:
- A YES answer
- A NO answer
- No answer is given - the person doesn't know what the answer is
Unless you love mystery type TV shows and can't live without them, you might be wondering if such an interrogation technique exists.
The answer to that is: YES
If you assume I can only answer what I know and I'm telling the truth...
You might also be wondering how to protect yourself from having it used on you some day.
The answer to that is: No answer is given
Happily for anyone wishing they knew more than just "YES" and "No answer is given"... I'd like to share what I know.
The name for this "ultimate interrogation technique" is simply: Hypnosis
To protect yourself from having it used on you: You're asking the wrong question - it's use like that shouldn't be allowed in the first place
Now that those questions are answered, I'd like to fill in a few more details about the hypothetical scenario initially described to match what actually happened to someone.
- The resident described as the owner of the personal property stolen had roommates before the theft occurred.
- He was also in a position that was vulnerable to him being detained for an extended period of time without being able to return to the residence
- Two people who he'd had no reason to previously distrust took advantage of that vulnerability and lied to police officers.
- The police officers did as they should and accepted the word of 2 people over the word of 1.
- The resident then ended up being detained for several weeks.
- After returning to the residence he found that everything he owned was gone.
- When he asked those he knew and those he thought might know what had happened he was given no answers.
This kind of situation seems like the perfect example of when an "ultimate interrogation technique" should be used.
Those who knew what happened wouldn't say anything and wouldn't help. That allowed them to avoid losing whatever trust they had but didn't deserve.
With that they continued taking from their "easy mark" with less and less concern about getting caught.
That person's name was Jaquell Mitchell-Cook.
If you thought it was about anyone else you were backwards.
It's starting to look like a way to find the truth at any cost - regardless of harm done in the process - should be used at every opportunity.
A few broken eggs here and there don't mean much - in terms of damaging someone's mind and leaving them open to mental illness - as long as the end justifies the means.
That's the way we do things now in this country.
That's regrettably how we've done things in the past (not always, but more often than not).
That's the way things should be done in the future.
Why change what works so well?
No comments:
Post a Comment