Problem
The Case: Quentin is sitting alone in a small, windowless interview room in the local police detachment. Recently, there were a string of armed robberies near Quentin's neighbourhood. In total, the thieves have made away with $150,000, and in the last robbery a bank employee was seriously injured. Media coverage about the robberies has been intense and the community is fearful. Surveillance cameras and witness accounts suggest there were three assailants, though they wore masks and no one could provide a description of their physical characteristics beyond their approximate heights. Detective Stuart received a tip from a confidential informant that Quentin was among those who committed the robberies. The case evidence is otherwise limited, and there is no physical evidence tying Quentin to the crimes. Detective Stuart's supervisor has indicated that a confession is critical in this case and that there is public pressure to secure a conviction. Quentin has been charged with robbery and the police are about to begin their interrogation. Detective Stuart is considering applying a more coercive approach to the interview and was trained in the Reid method. He is also considering telling Quentin that his DNA was found at two of the scenes.
Task
Should police officers be allowed to use coercive investigation and interrogation techniques in their effort to extract a confession from Quentin? Why or why not? What are some of the possible implications if we did (or did not) allow this? Are there any potential alternative solutions or practices? Why might these be a better choice?