What is the primary difference between an interview and an interrogation in investigative practice?

• A. The interview is non-coercive information gathering with open-ended questions; the interrogation is a confrontation aimed at obtaining admissions or confessions, often using pressure and specific tactics.
• B. An interview is always shorter than an interrogation.
• C. Interviews are only conducted with witnesses; interrogations are only with suspects.
• D. Interviews require physical force; interrogations use only conversation.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is the difference in approach and purpose between information gathering and eliciting admissions. In an interview, the goal is to learn what happened by asking non-coercive, open-ended questions that let the person describe events in their own words, often focusing on witnesses or people who can provide context. It’s usually informal and aimed at gathering reliable details through conversation and rapport.

In an interrogation, the aim shifts to obtaining admissions or confessions from a person suspected of wrongdoing. This setting is more confrontational and strategic, often using the evidence at hand to challenge the subject’s story and to pressure a decision to talk or to reveal information that’s decisive. The techniques are designed to influence the subject’s willingness to disclose information, within legal and ethical boundaries.

That’s why the other statements don’t fit: an interview isn’t defined by a fixed shorter duration, and it’s not limited to witnesses only while interrogations are limited to suspects; and interviews aren’t about physical force. The essence is really about the non-coercive, exploratory nature of interviews versus the confrontational, admission-seeking focus of interrogations.