Three Essential Stages of a Successful Interview Process
Three essential stages are required for successful interview procedures. There is an emphasis and focus for each stage. The three steps adhere to various procedures because they have various demands. The outcome of one action directly affects the outcome of the next. When someone performs badly in one stage, it is more likely that the poor performance will affect their ability to perform the next stage. Additionally, the interviewing panel develops an attitude based on how the candidate performed in the first stage. Establishing rapport, gathering data, and wrapping up the discussion are the typical steps in an interview. The first step forming an interview process starts immediately the interviewer enters the interview room and meets the panel (Walter, 2016). The impression created during this phase is essential in defining the tone of the interview. The interviewees personal grooming communicates a lot to the panel, and the panel will be looking for a trait that twill makes the applicant suit the job requirements better.
The Gathering of Information
The second step involves the gathering of information that will inform groups idea to take or reject the candidate (Stokoe, Edward, & Edwards, 2016). Questions are asked, and the candidate responds to them, and through it, the committee gets to know more about the applicant's ability and understanding of what is required of them. A candidate must have researched well about the firm and be ready to respond to questions the panel will raise to prepare well for this session. The information gathered in this step is critical in establishing the suitability of the applicant for the position (Sliedrecht, Van der Houwen, & Schasfoort, 2016). The committee makes the decision to recruit or reject the candidate based on the authenticity of the information gathered and the ability the applicant has demonstrated.
The Closing Session
The last step in the interview process is the closing up session. If a claimant has shown the capacity to deliver as per the required standards, the closing session will focus on continuing the relationship between the firm and the candidate (Stokoe, Edward , & Edwards, 2016). An applicant who has performed poorly will have the conversation shift from discussing corporate affairs to general talk.
The three steps are essential for the success if an interview process. Each level can increase an interviewer’s chances of being recruited or failing to demonstrate ability thus be dismissed.
Difference between an Interview and Interrogation
Interviews are a systematic and well-structured conversation between experts and job applicants in most cases, which are aimed and establishing the competence and suitability of a claimant to perform a given task. Interrogations, on the other hand, are used by police officers when questioning a suspect to get more information related to a particular incidence. There are many differences between an interview and an interrogation. The differences include; interview takes place in friendly and serene places and involves professionals related to a particular field while an investigation takes place in intimidating environments where the police interrogate a suspect aggressively while the suspect acts like a victim (Stokoe, Edward , & Edwards, 2016). During an interview, both parties relate to each other with respect, while in interrogation cases of the suspect victimization are common (Walter, 2016). The suspect has limited rights while under interrogation as compared to an interviewee, who has absolute rights and is treated with dignity. Secondly, investigations involve emotional and psychological warfare between the police and a suspect while an interview involves professional a discussion aimed at establishing the ability and understanding of a person to perform a given job.
The third difference is that the results of an interrogation process are the suspect confessing having taken part in a particular activity or not or having witnessed it take part while the results of an interview is an actual information related to the candidate's understanding or abilities (Sliedrecht, Van der Houwen, & Schasfoort, 2016). The results of an interview process are an accurate reflection of the applicant's ability and understanding. Lastly, interviews involve a friendly discussion between the interviewer and the interviewee (Primus, 2017). One is not coerced to give information whereas interrogations are mostly attempted to get more information about an activity, and a suspect is compelled to speak or give responses to questions raised.
Therefore, there exist differences between interviews and interrogations mainly based on how to conduct them and the relationship between parties involved. Nevertheless, interviews and interrogations aim at bringing out more information about a given topic of discussion.
Proper Miranda Admonishment Methods for Investigations
Miranda admonishments aim at ensuring police officers relate well with the suspect. Evidence collected in a case play a critical role in the administration of justice. It is impossible to underestimate the need to have accurate information when prosecuting a case (Sliedrecht, Van der Houwen, & Schasfoort, 2016). The Miranda warnings provide that investigators must notify a suspect of his or her right to remain silent in the course of the interrogation and be warned that whatever responses or information gathered from the interrogation will be used in prosecuting the case. It is prudent to notify suspects that the information they give will be presented as evidence against them, thus providing credible and factual information. Sometimes a defendant may not understand the law and the proper process to be followed when handling a case (Primus, 2017). Such defendants need the assistance of a lawyer who will explain the process of interrogation and the rights of the suspect. Therefore, police must inform a suspect of his or her right to seek the help of a lawyer during questioning.
In case the defendant cannot afford to hire a lawyer, the police must notify him or her that the state can appoint one for him or her. The police must then seek consent from the suspect on whether to proceed with the interrogation without a lawyer or find one before continuing with the case. Miranda admonishments have made the police acquire legal knowledge on how to carry out interviews and interrogations. The Miranda rules have been critical in ensuring that custodial interrogations do not victimize suspects (Stokoe, Edward, & Edwards, 2016). In case police officers fail to inform a defendant of his or her right as stipulated in the Miranda rules, the evidence collected may be declared null and void, and the respondent may sue the police for denying the suspect fundamental rights.
Sometimes investigator faces numerous problems when carrying out investigations due to the Miranda rules. Some defendants have refused to talk to the police officers, thus making the police not gather information needed to prosecute a case. Giving a warning on when and where the interrogation will take place gives the suspect time to plan on how to respond to questions raised so as to avoid being found guilty. The Miranda warning has given suspects more powers, thus making the work of the police difficult. Miranda warning nevertheless, Miranda admonishments have helped carry out credible interrogations which provide factual information to be used in the prosecution of a case.
References
Primus, E. B. (2017). Disentangling Miranda and Massiah: How to Revive the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel as a Tool for Regulating Confession Law.
Sliedrecht, K. Y., Van der Houwen, F., & Schasfoort, M. (2016). Challenging formulations in police interrogations and job interviews: A comparative study. Journal of Pragmatics, 105, 114-129.
Stokoe, E., Edwards, D., & Edwards, H. (2016). “No Comment” Responses to Questions in Police Investigative Interviews. Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process, 289.
Walters, S. B. (2016). Principles of kinesic interview and interrogation. CRC Press.
