What are effective interviewing strategies for incarcerated or detained individuals?

I was arrested for smoking a joint in NYC and promptly sent to the Tombs then on to Rikers. For a joint! It’s criminal the way the “system” works. The “corrections” officers are not like you see in Law and Order. They’re mean. And ugly inside. It was a horrible experience I never want to go through. Ever again. But it motivated me to write my book, Cannabis Cocktails, Mocktails and Tonics which brought me here. So that’s a plus.

It is not really necessary to dive in to the exact case, depending if you are there for their case. You must start at studying the rules and regulations - legal issues when visiting a facility and what happens to a man held hostage in one of those facilities. They are considered not to have any rights, because of being held hostage, regardless of what so called crime was committed. All rules and regulations change once held hostage. The system is broken because once you are inside and you mention your so called "rights" you are been labeled and targeted. Which means no matter what you do or say you can never be right. So this is the first fact you must acknowledge.

Como advogada, sempre pe?o aos amigos e colegas jornalistas: verifique se o entrevistado tem um advogado constituído e fale diretamente com ele, antes de entrevistar o alvo da sua matéria. Essa atitude demonstra respeito ao caso e tenho certeza que o advogado responsável vai se sentir mais à vontade para lhe fornecer informa??es técnicas, que o cliente dele nunca saberia transmitir.

As a former Criminal Justice student and interned with the CJA, I had the opportunity to interview several incarcerated or detained individuals. Interviewing these types of people; you should get "permission" from the authorities and be aware of the rules around it. Keep in mind that you are interviewing the suspect or sentenced individual. They may only tell some of the truth due to the legality. To get the true story, you really need to win their trust. As an "Intern," I was able to look into their previous criminal record and surprisingly question them about the past. Their facial expression suddenly changed after hearing the surprise question. I never prepared for the questions. I used to ask what I felt was important to know.

Build rapport and trust is secondary. You need to first know the man and approach correct|neutral|with an open mind. If the man did not trust he would have not agreed to speak to you. If they don't trust you, they will let you know and tell you to leave. Has nothing to do with trauma, abuse or discrimination. It has all to do with insecurity|sure of them selves|fear. All depend on the topic and or the man in question, you must be emotional intelligent, that is far more important.

Do not prepare anything. Because again it depends on the man sitting in front of you, whether they will speak or not and how they will speak. #KnowTheMan. I had a psychiatrist sitting in front of me, whom I clearly told I would not cooperate on a forced psychological evaluation by a judge's decision, for saving my child, from being raped, out of a foster home. She completely ignored only to conclude she did not comprehend what I was saying because of lawful verbiage I used. So in return I concluded that she was incompetent to conduct an evaluation because she has no idea what I was explaining to her. She concluded I had a social psychological post traumatic problem, due to damages|crimes|torts committed by the government. #NoTechniques.

Informed consent is always important when you're interviewing. You have to be transparent about how you plan to use the information from an interview with anyone including incarcerated or detained people from the start and be sure, as Sarah Armstrong, from the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, says, "informed consent is truly informed." There could be a greater potential for perceived coercion in these situations, so document all you can including consent, and make it clear whenever you are documenting or recording. You should also start with assurances that participation or non-participation won't impact the source's circumstances.

A. For goodness sake, do some research. B. Know as much as you can about what happened, and the persons then and now stance. C. Contact U.S. WEED CHANNEL to make sure the interview gets seen globally. It does no good for you or them without distribution.

Many people, who are in and and have been through government systems like foster care, criminal justice, welfare, etc., have well-practiced stories about their lives. These stories are necessary for survival but are not always true. The stories can change over time, sometimes they become true for the individual. I don't think the truth should be more important than a person's mental and physical well-being in these cases.

What difference will it make if at the end you draw your own conclusion and disregard the man being interviewed? Only do this if you really are going to considerate and use the feedback you got. And only then you can have a impartial clear conclusion.

It depends what the reason is for a follow up. Will it add a solution|payment|meaning|future action to the interview for the man? If not? Make it clear before even starting the interview. No need for false fake empathy. It looks good on paper, in real life it is not necessary.