Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Would it be easier for you generally to interrogate male or female suspects:? Overall, who would you feel more comfy working with, or just less hassly? P. S. Even though its not legal, you can consider the cases where you'd use force also (nothing vicious, just a few punches or kicks maximum) I need some answers for a specific study.
Updates
+1 y
I tried to make a poll but it didn't go through, so i need basically answers on 4 cases. male without force, female without force, and then same but using force. which one would be the easiest for you to work with
What Girls Said
I’ve watched a lot of interrogation videos on YouTube, man and woman interrogators and one thing all of the female interrogators have in common is they have masculine patterns in their questioning and body language. To the point where you would almost forget they were a woman. Admittedly, most suspects youd interrogate are most likely to be male, and this is a male dominated field, so you really have to put the gender norms to the side. The sex appeal and all of that gets you nowhere, in fact, most likely gets you taken less seriously. Women tend to be more emotional, but your emotions have to be completely controlled when interrogating people because you have to present as the dominator at all times. Hate to sound sexist, but I understand why this is a male dominated field, because it takes a special type of woman to not lose her cool when dealing with a man who just killed his baby and is denying it.
I feel like there is a general attitude to make and female interrogators that are one and the same. In a male dominated field, female interrogators have to present to be taken seriously. I think the only upper hand women may have in the interrogation room is they may seem more trustworthy to someone they’re trying to get the upper hand on for confession. I also think, initially in questioning, it’s important to come off compassionate to suspects to get them talking which is more of a feminine specialty. Female interrogators are badass but they definitely all have male mannerisms and I think it’s mandatory to be successful in that field.
Thank you for the reply, I agree with you, but the question is not about being a male/female interrogator, but interrogating males/females as a girl. Who would it be easier for you to interrogate personally? And also there's a subcase in which you are allowed to legally use light force to make them confess as quick as possible (just striking, like hits or kicks, nothing more) and also have to specify who could you use force more efficiently on.
I answered it for you hun, lol. It wouldn’t matter if it was male or female. There’s really no agreement I can have with a criminal, or a pathological liar in front of me. Whether it was a female or male, most high profile criminals operate on the same lack of empathy. Meaning, there is nothing that would come easier in terms of relating. You watch the interrogation of Jodi Arias, and you most definitely are not going to relate to her. She’s obviously a psychopath.
And in terms of hitting, no, that’s weird. I think you’re asking for more of a Hollywood movie type of response when I’m responding as realistic.
Ok I get what you mean, but no its not related to movies, although I do understand that it is a dumb question, I totally understand :) I have the same thoughts, well, nearly the same on the entire situation if it has to be me. But yea, hitting is a "mandatory" part of the storyline, unfortunately because most people won't even think of that, including obviously you and me as well :) Thanks for the detailed response though, I really do appreciate it!
If I was an investigator, then I would definitely have better luck at interrogating women but without the use of force.
As a female, it is easier to understand female psychology than male's psychology. Being from the same gender, you can relate much better to the same gender than the opposite one. Females tick a different way than males do. They are by no means gentler or less vicious but it takes a woman to handle a woman. Women tend to be less brutal than their male counterparts.
It is easier to place yourself in the shoes of a person of the same gender and try to get the reasoning behind their acts. A male investigator may be fooled by the seemingly innocent looks or behavior of a female while female investigators will not be fooled that easily.
Force does not bring the expected results because many will confess just about anything under torture or force and violence.
@sueshe I completely agree, thank you for a detailed opinion!
However, in this case use of force is mandatory at least with one of them (it's a long story why it's a must, it's related to a study) so could you tell what you'd do at least in theory? And who would you choose to use it on and why?
In case the use of violence was necessary, then modus operandi would be as follows:
1. secure the written order to use force from the head of department.
2. get the written back up from the district attorney.
3. have the appointed lawyer of the person to be interrogated be present and fully informed.
4. have a video/audio recording of the interrogation available and made available to me in case of conflict.
5. a representative of the human rights association to supervise the interrogation.
6. the "audition" and subsequent interrogation must be held in a separate room with a one-way window where both the attorney of the person being interrogated, the chief of the police department and a representative of a humans' rights movement will be present. There will be no communicating between either side of the window except to give or receive instructions.
If I have to use unethical methods to interrogate a suspect, then I want to make sure that I have the law on my side and that nobody can ever file suit against me for the interrogation procedure.
@sueshe Thanks for the reply!
I understood the process, the main idea is to secure yourself from the consequences.
But the question on that one is still the same: who would it be easier for you to unethically interrogate, a male or a female? And which methods exactly would you consider the most efficient and quick to make them confess. P. S. as I stated above, its not necessary to use some extra vicious things, you are only allowed to use your own body to inflict pain or pressure on the criminal.
It is definitely easier for me to interrogate a woman for the reasons I stated above.
I would emphasize my interrogation on psychological "warfare" such as extensive use of suggestive situations and statements involving very visual consequences in a penitentiary environment.
Also, the "hot/cold" treatment and the traditional Reid interrogation technique involving understanding and sympathy for the suspect.
Understood. Also agreed.
For the light force usage part, didn't really get an explanation though, it's quite needed. Like I said before, just a few smacks/hits/kicks? Because the consequences in a penitentiary environment can vary way too much from the basic of striking a criminal
Females. Most men are like talking to a brick wall.
@Nikki1989 Hehe I agree, but there's also a subcase if you missed it, if you were allowed to use light force (punch/kick max nothing serious), would also girls be easier?
Maybe not, some girls can fight dirty. Things could get ugly.
Well its the case where they can't fight back. It depends on who you can use the force more efficiently which would make them confess.
@Nikki1989 Would that set up change how the things would go?