Communication during an Interview Question 1

Communication during an Interview Question 1

Communicationduring an Interview


Investigatingand interrogating suspects, criminals and witnesses is one way ofensuring justice for all under the arm of law enforcement. However,cultural diversity could negatively affect the outcome ofinvestigations profoundly if officers were to violate some of thecultural beliefs. America is a magnet that attracts many ethnicitiesfrom all over the world since time memorial. These ethnic groups havedifferent ways of life that is different from the popular culture.Lack of understanding different cultures could impact negatively inan investigation.

Agood example of differences in cultural communications is non verbalcommunication and body language. Different communities expressthemselves differently through body language. For instance, The USconsiders eye contact to be a virtue while talking on the otherhand, the Asian communities consider eye contact as a sign ofrudeness and disrespectful. When Asian women maintain eye contact, itis regarded as a sign of sexual interest. Therefore, when an Americanand an Asian hold a conversation, it becomes difficult especially ifboth people have no knowledge of the cultural differences. The samecase happened in work place when an Asian man and American womanworked together. Whenever the American woman engaged in acommunication, she would look directly into the eyes of the man. Theman felt intimated by her gestures to a point of reporting the caseto me. We discussed the matter and came to a conclusion that theAmerican woman had no bad intentions. Such cases happen every day inworkplaces and other institutions. It is therefore crucial to beaware of other people’s culture before engaging in communications.


Often,in crime investigations, police officers act as witnesses they areasked to give their expert opinions regarding a crime. They arereferred to as expert witnesses and are presented as such. They seekto explain matters beyond the common comprehension of lay opinion.This is based on specialized training, experience, knowledge, andskills. The expert opinion should help the jury understand theapplicability of the evidence being presented. Police officers needto study the evidence of a crime scene and bring forthinterpretations that will help the jury to reach a verdict.

However,the role of officers as witnesses has some issues that challenge thepresentation of evidence. Expert witnesses must possess certaincredentials that must be presented for them to qualify as expertwitnesses. It is also prevalent that having expert witnesses couldburden the prosecutors. It takes a great deal of time before anexpert witness can put together all the evidence provided in order tomake an expert interpretation of the matter in question. In addition,the need for expert witnesses could pressure the prosecutors to bringforth an expert witness. Sometimes this would mean outsourcingbecause all the prosecutors would be burdened. This makes prosecutiontedious and much more difficult. In some cases, requests may beincompatible with the officers’ duties. It is also notable thatpolice as witnesses may not have all the relevant information neededfor the case. The other major issue facing them is that of unclearcommunication. Often the disputing parties may give unclear andincomplete information that would make it really hard to come up witha conclusive statement. Each and every issue is as important as theother, and none carries more weight when it comes to the court(Swanson, Chamelin, Territo &amp Taylor, 2012).


Thecase of Miranda v. Arizona marks one of the landmarks of fairness ininvestigation process. Miranda was identified as a suspect of kidnapand rape. During the police interrogation, he was denied the fifthand sixth amendment against self incrimination and the rights toattorney respectively. He was convicted for 20 to 30 years in prison,but his case was upheld because his rights were violated. The courtruled in favor of Miranda, something that led to the recognition ofthe rights to attorney and to remain silent during the policeinterrogation. This led to a famous phrase ‘Miranda warning’which is of great importance in today’s interrogating processes. Itensures that suspects are not pressured from giving informationwithout the presence of attorney if they request for one.

Minnickv. Mississippi

Minnickv. Mississippi case is another important case that promotes fairnessof the accused. Minnick escaped from the prison and was convicted ofkilling two people in search of weapons. He was convicted of murder,but upon appeal, the conviction was overturned based on the fact thathe was denied the rights to counsel during the interrogation process.The petitioner, Minnick, claimed that he was denied the rights ofattorney during the interrogation process. He was investigated by thepolice officers in the absence of the counsel, which is against thesixth amendment. Even though the attorney was made available to thepetitioner, he was not present in the interrogation process. Therights to remain silent in the absence of the counsel were alsoviolated by the prosecutors in this case. It was argued that thepetitioner was given a chance to speak with the petitioner before theinterrogation. However, the court claimed that speaking to theattorney only once was not enough, and his absence during thequestioning was not warranted (Acker&amp Brody, 2004).&nbsp

Thecase of Minnick V. Mississippi is similar to that of Miranda v.Arizona with reference to the sixth amendment. Both cases hold thatthe petitioners or the accused have the rights to a counsel thus, anattorney should be availed upon their request. In such a case, theinterrogation and questioning of the accused should cease immediatelyuntil the attorney shows up. The interrogation process, in such acase, can only proceed only in the presence of an attorney. It isassumed that anyone who speaks in the absence of a lawyer is forcedto make false statements by the police through torture and pressure.Anytime a suspect claims that he or she wants to speak to anattorney, the questioning ceases immediately until an attorney isavailed. Both cases plays a great importance in the way questioningof suspects is conducted.


Acker,J. R., &amp Brody, D. C. (2004).&nbspCriminalprocedure: A contemporary perspective.Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Swanson,C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., &amp Taylor, R. W. (2012).Criminal investigation (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.