English
How does an interrogation go when a police officer is the one interrogating? To answer this question I met with my school police officer and asked her several questions I had. The first question that came to mind was “When you are interrogating someone how do you go about approaching them and what to say?” She then answered and said it “Depends on their age.” This really confused me until she went into further detail why. The reason is because if they are not 18 years of age or older, the police officer has to get parent permission before being able to speak to them about what's happened. Then to follow up to that question I asked, “Do you have any techniques when it comes to talking to kids when they are being interrogated?” She told me.“ I use good cop bad cop, but usually can just talk to someone normally.” Which made me think how does she keep her tone or how does she act, verbally, physically, etc. She told me this which made everything clear and seemed like what I’d do if I were in her situation. “I usually go in very nice and understanding, letting the person I’m talking to talk and get there point across and out. But mainly try to be nice and calm.” The reason I say this makes a lot of sense is because it is technically a technique people actually use when it comes to asking people questions in an interrogation. Then I asked “Let's say someone is not being cooperative or isn’t talking? What's your next step or what do you do?” She told me “People are not going to cooperate with you and that happens. You just have to see how they talk and see how they are, or how they act. Like how they were raised, and sometimes change your tone depending on the situation.” She also followed up on that saying “Usually that doesn’t happen too much and she can just talk to people and can just asking people open questions to just get them talking. So then they can talk to you when it comes to the situation at hand” the police officer also mentioned how adults are better to deal with than kids as well. Which would be frustrating because you have to have a parent permission every time you are put into a situation or else you can’t talk to them.
I asked the same questions I asked the principals I did the police officers and got pretty interesting and different answers. My first question was the same first question I asked the police officer, “When you are interrogating someone how do you go about approaching them and what to say?” The answer I got from the principal seemed fair he said “They always listen to the student side of the story, they want to hear what they have to say.” Also when I asked that question the principal also brought up that they discipline the infraction not the student. Which makes clear sense. My next question then was “Do you have any techniques when it comes to talking to kids when they are being interrogated?” They said “We use a little bit of good cop bad cop and reverse phycology, the principals help each when it comes to someone they are interrogating?” When I also asked this question they mentioned at the end of the question that they would never throw anyone under the bus for coming to the office for anything when it comes to a report. They said “They want people to come to them with anything, they want school to be fun and safe.” Following up to the last question I asked “Let's say someone is not being cooperative or isn’t talking, what's your next step or what do you do?” When I asked this, the principals were clear about exactly what would happen if someone wasn’t cooperating here’s what they said “When we do deal with someone and they are not cooperating we only have one option, that’s to give them a punishment based off of what knowledge they have when it comes to the situation.” Which means they deal the whole punishment sometimes the principals also said “They always lets parents know when there is a situation that pops up and also the school officer.” But what I got from that question is that you are better off being honest and telling the truth with what happened when it came to whatever situation you were in than not talking, or cooperating. The punishment would be far less severe if you were just honest and cooperated fully.
There's multiple reasons why a police interrogations wouldn’t go well for a school principal interrogations, and a School principal interrogation wouldn’t go well with a police interrogation. The most obvious one from my interviews are that police officers can’t speak to minors without parent permission. Which wouldn’t go well with principals at all, considering most learners are under 18. Infractions in a school setting for the most part are not against the law, so a simple discussion is ok to get to the bottom of a situation. Police deal with legal issues that require an adult if underage or an attorney by right. Also, with a principal when someone is being interrogated they don’t need parent permission to talk to any kid of any age and they can disciple based on the knowledge and witnesses they have. The police have to call parents, offer an attorney and follow the law. Consent is not always granted which can complicate the situation . Thats why it wouldn't work if they were to switch rules. Last but not least if a police officer but has a feeling they are guilty, but has no evidence there’s not much they can do rather than just keep a better eye on them. Compared to a school principal if they think someone is guilty and they know it or don’t. They just have to work with what they have based on what they know. Instead of what a police officer would do, because they have to prove someone or somebody guilty. Ultimately this goes to show that if the rules were switched around it would be completely different, for many different reasons. Based on what they are specifically allowed to do when it comes to being a principal or an officer and the situation.
I asked the same questions I asked the principals I did the police officers and got pretty interesting and different answers. My first question was the same first question I asked the police officer, “When you are interrogating someone how do you go about approaching them and what to say?” The answer I got from the principal seemed fair he said “They always listen to the student side of the story, they want to hear what they have to say.” Also when I asked that question the principal also brought up that they discipline the infraction not the student. Which makes clear sense. My next question then was “Do you have any techniques when it comes to talking to kids when they are being interrogated?” They said “We use a little bit of good cop bad cop and reverse phycology, the principals help each when it comes to someone they are interrogating?” When I also asked this question they mentioned at the end of the question that they would never throw anyone under the bus for coming to the office for anything when it comes to a report. They said “They want people to come to them with anything, they want school to be fun and safe.” Following up to the last question I asked “Let's say someone is not being cooperative or isn’t talking, what's your next step or what do you do?” When I asked this, the principals were clear about exactly what would happen if someone wasn’t cooperating here’s what they said “When we do deal with someone and they are not cooperating we only have one option, that’s to give them a punishment based off of what knowledge they have when it comes to the situation.” Which means they deal the whole punishment sometimes the principals also said “They always lets parents know when there is a situation that pops up and also the school officer.” But what I got from that question is that you are better off being honest and telling the truth with what happened when it came to whatever situation you were in than not talking, or cooperating. The punishment would be far less severe if you were just honest and cooperated fully.
There's multiple reasons why a police interrogations wouldn’t go well for a school principal interrogations, and a School principal interrogation wouldn’t go well with a police interrogation. The most obvious one from my interviews are that police officers can’t speak to minors without parent permission. Which wouldn’t go well with principals at all, considering most learners are under 18. Infractions in a school setting for the most part are not against the law, so a simple discussion is ok to get to the bottom of a situation. Police deal with legal issues that require an adult if underage or an attorney by right. Also, with a principal when someone is being interrogated they don’t need parent permission to talk to any kid of any age and they can disciple based on the knowledge and witnesses they have. The police have to call parents, offer an attorney and follow the law. Consent is not always granted which can complicate the situation . Thats why it wouldn't work if they were to switch rules. Last but not least if a police officer but has a feeling they are guilty, but has no evidence there’s not much they can do rather than just keep a better eye on them. Compared to a school principal if they think someone is guilty and they know it or don’t. They just have to work with what they have based on what they know. Instead of what a police officer would do, because they have to prove someone or somebody guilty. Ultimately this goes to show that if the rules were switched around it would be completely different, for many different reasons. Based on what they are specifically allowed to do when it comes to being a principal or an officer and the situation.
History
Art
This is one of Leon Golub’s most famous and most recognizable pieces titled “Interrogation II”, which he made in 1981 on canvas with acrylic paint. This painting depicts outside of the law interogations showing two men obviously harming this man is some sort of torture. In the image you can see that specifically the man that’s being interrogated is hung upside down from the ceiling by his feet. The man is also being beaten by the man with the baton, and the person that’s beating him is in some sort of uniform or suit. While the other man is watching him beat the person getting interrogated. In other pieces I’ve noticed Golub’s artwork usually directs the images towards you. You can tell the man on the right is pointing at the person being interrogated and that pulls the viewers attention into the artwork a little bit more. Also, the fact the the person being interrogated is naked and is blind folded, which shows even more that he’s defenseless. It shows the abuse of power and crossing ethical boundaries. This just goes to show how different things may have been years ago compared to now. This could have been normal if someone has done something wrong which isn’t right. Now a days there would be no need ever for this to happen to someone. Some people think that this painting is mythological but this occurred during their time period and was a serious problem. In this image Golub was specifically showing fascism. Viewers can empathize with the victim and like before creating a moral dilemma with the nudity.