Good cop, bad cop
Under Good cop, bad cop ( english good cop, bad cop ) is understood as a psychological tactic that, if required by police for interrogation is used. The technology is known from the USA and has entered popular culture in an exaggerated form as a film cliché . In an actual questioning it is only used subtly and is unknown in a formal interrogation using German interrogation techniques. However, it can also be used in private negotiations .
Action
Two police officers take turns questioning a suspect or witness. The general aim is to generate sympathy for the "good bull" so that he can act as a kind of " confessor ".
The "bad cop" provides apparently unjustified, but secretly intended personal attacks against the person to be interrogated to provoke him and at the same time to intimidate him or even to threaten him . This is the basis for the appearance of the "good bull". He has an understanding, supportive and cautious effect on the person to be interrogated. He tries to establish a loose personal bond. In doing so, he shows the person to be interrogated that it is difficult to protect him from the attacks of the "bad cop". By offering a coffee, a cigarette or the like, an attempt can be made to create a positive attitude towards the good bull. He can also try to grant the accused certain privileges or to justify possible actions morally. Often the “good cop” does not appear during the actual interrogation, but only afterwards, in the hallway or in a separate lounge, during a kind of “informal interrogation”. Statements made there are to be used as well as those from the actual interrogation.
By alternating provocation and empathy, the suspect is to be induced to confess or to make certain statements. The "bad cop" puts the suspect in an emotionally troubled state, the "good cop" sells the statement as a way out of a threatening situation.
practice
The technology can be recognized quickly by informed people, but it remains effective especially against young, anxious or emotionally naive respondents. If the suspect realizes the tactic, he often feels snubbed and there is a risk that he will completely refuse to testify. Experienced police officers estimate the level of education and possible knowledge of the interviewee before the interrogation in order to choose another interview method if necessary.
The technique is mainly used in the United States and has entered popular culture there . There are numerous exaggerated depictions of this interrogation method in film and television. As a result, it is widely known. In practice, it is used in a much more subtle way than it is shown in the cinematic implementation, in order to avoid recognition and the resulting refusal to give evidence. This is all the more true as some of these tactics are reprimanded in court as suggestive questioning, especially with inexperienced respondents, and the results are discarded.
In Germany this interrogation technique is not recognized. The actual result of a formal questioning should be reflected in a protocol, both when questioning the accused and when interviewing witnesses. In contrast to the USA, where deception is sometimes allowed during an interrogation, this is explicitly prohibited under the German Code of Criminal Procedure - here the principle applies:
"The accused's freedom of decision-making and self-determination must not be impaired by abuse, fatigue, physical intervention, the administration of medicinal (consciousness-clouding) substances, torture, deception or hypnosis."
