Hurricanes Helen and Milton, as well as most other natural disasters, cause a horrific loss of life and property. This chaos experienced by innocent victims brings out both the best and the worst in human nature.
Criminals view the aftermath of such situations as immense profit-seeking opportunities. They easily prey upon victims’ stress, fatigue, anxiety, helplessness, disorientation and their property to garner personal gain.
Law enforcement officials respond to assist innocent victims who have been looted, scammed, cheated and harmed. However, based on many factors, response times can vary from hours to days and even weeks, affording criminals time to profit from these vulnerable individuals.
Perhaps the most common crime resulting from natural disasters is looting.
Effective interrogation themes for disaster-related crimes
The interrogation theme is the argument intended to appeal to an offender’s mentality, beliefs and perspective. Under the Reid Technique, themes have two fundamental components: a) shifting moral, emotional, or psychological (never legal) blame from the offender to either another individual or circumstance(s) within the offender’s life; and b) contrasting the offender’s misconduct with something morally, emotionally, or psychologically worse.
As an example, the interrogator may seek to shift blame by suggesting that the offender himself had been a victim of the very same hurricane that caused total destruction of his home and belongings. The offender may have had no other recourse due to being uninsured, as greedy insurance companies made it cost-prohibitive, if not entirely impossible, to obtain a homeowner’s policy on the West Coast of Florida. The offender was desperate to find a solution for his wife and children in their destitute situation triggered by Hurricane Milton’s fury.
Similarly, the interrogator might contrast the offender’s fraudulent behavior with something morally, emotionally, or psychologically (never legally) worse by suggesting that in this situation, nobody was injured or lost their life. Instead, it could be framed as simply taking some items (jewelry, cash, clothing, appliances, furniture, etc.) from the property to survive. As you and I know, insurance will probably cover the cost of these items. The interrogator might further the argument by complimenting the offender for not holding anyone at gunpoint or breaking into another’s home in a burglary or home invasion, where someone could have actually gotten hurt. Additionally, the interrogator might suggest that the offender may have genuinely believed the victim’s assets would ultimately be protected by a second compensatory payment by the insurance company after the initial payment had been issued.
Having made these arguments to the offender, an interrogator could culminate the interrogation with a singular “alternative question” that embodies both fundamental components of the argument. This question draws a distinction between reprehensible versus palatable motivations behind the misconduct. It paves a moral, emotional and psychological pathway for the offender’s initial acknowledgment of his misconduct. Using the offender’s first name, the interrogator may ask: “Did you do this indiscriminately out of greed for your own self-interest without any regard for the family, or were you just desperately trying to protect your wife and kids because you knew the insurance companies would refuse to provide you coverage for hurricanes like the one that just hit your own home in Florida?”
Suggested approaches
Blame the victim for:
1. Not securing the property
2. Having a nice house in an affluent neighborhood
3. Not being on the property
4. Having insurance to cover all losses
5. Leaving an unsecured shed with tools that assisted in breaking into the house
Blame suspect’s adverse life conditions:
1. Unemployed
2. Need for food, clothing, or shelter
3. Responsibility for family members
4. Physically injured
5. Drug dependency
Exaggerate the suspect’s behavior:
1. Contrast breaking into one house versus several
2. Contrast one city block’s victims’ property versus the entire neighborhood
3. Contrast stealing property for self/family versus selling for profit (need vs. greed)
4. Contrast taking property versus harming or taking someone’s life
5. Contrast spur-of-the-moment actions versus premeditation
Conclusion
In the wake of natural disasters, understanding and effectively interrogating those who exploit tragedy helps bring justice to victims and reinforces the resilience of affected communities.
