Interviews can be viewed as conversations with specific purposes. In social work, the purpose may be informational (selective gathering of life history material related to physical, social, emotional, cognitive functioning), diagnostic (to assess mental or social status), or therapeutic (to bring about a desired change). (Kadushin, 1990).

Informational. Most mitigation interviews fall within the category of gaining information. More specifically, the mitigation interview is intended to obtain information which helps others understand the client's actions in a context which militates the offensiveness of those actions. We are trying to gain information but, more important, we are trying to achieve understanding.

Diagnostic. A secondary goal of the mitigation interview is diagnostic. We must know the social and mental status of the person we are interviewing in order to discern whether we will be able to gain any substantive information and, if so, to what extent. The goals and limits of an interview with a person who suffers from mental retardation or schizophrenia or alcoholism are often quite different from an interview with an individual who is unimpaired and exhibits good insight. In extreme instances, the interview is completely diagnostic; that is, the goal of the interview is purely to gain data about the person's psychopathology with no hope of gaining important life history information. While the diagnostic interview may provide no substantive information, it can be a rich source of insight about the influences which have shaped the individual's perception, judgment and behavior. Diagnostic data may inform us about whether our client is able to assist in his or her own defense, or it may tell us that our client was raised by a person so debilitated by mental illness as to render the person incapable of being a competent caretaker and role model.

Therapeutic. Many times the nature of the information we are seeking necessitates that the interview take on a therapeutic quality. When we hit upon painful or traumatic content, we must slow the pace of the interview and deal with the resulting emotions and reactions. Here we must "hear the suffering" and respond with compassion. (Othmer, et al, 1994). In most instances, simply allowing the person to "tell the story" - perhaps for the first time - magically relieves the pain. Silence can be the best balm. "Creating a space" for the person to separate themselves from their pain and to see it more objectively is often the most effective therapeutic intervention. Other times, the person needs reassurance and acceptance. Painful memories are usually accompanied by great shame and embarrassment. Conveying to the person that their pain is real and reasonable sometimes enables them to see their experiences from a healthier perspective, with the knowledge that they were not responsible for the harms that came their way. In more acute cases, cognitive restructuring is a powerful technique to ameliorate the person's suffering and offer them a tool with which to self-soothe. It consists of providing a new, more positive way to view or interpret an experience or belief. For example, a client or lay witness may recount witnessing his mother's murder, emphasizing what he perceives to have been his failure to save her. This belief likely creates a deep sense of self-hatred and shame, emotions which may be so overwhelming as to prevent him from fully describing the event (details are critical to an adequate psychosocial assessment). Acknowledging the person's feelings of helplessness, terror and confusion is integral to working through the pain which may well have kept them emotionally paralyzed since the time of the atrocity. However, it is sometime useful to go a step further, providing the person a different perspective of the event. For example, pointing out that they were a small child, indeed helpless in the face of such an unimaginable act of violence; explaining the predictable and unavoidable effects of trauma, and highlighting the things the person may have done (sought help, called 911, protected the other children, tended to wounds, etc.) which by any standards, were noble and heroic, may reduce their anxiety and give them a way of understanding their behavior. Acquiring a more positive view often enhances the person's self-image and opens doors to psychic content which may otherwise remain inaccessible.

The relationship between the interviewer and the witness is the conduit through which information and its meaning is exchanged. (Kadushin, 1990). Positive relationships are more likely to produce honest, detailed responses to inquiries. There are a number of components of positive relationships, perhaps the most important of which is trust. The client or lay witness must believe that the interviewer has integrity and that his or her intentions are sincere. Integral to trust is acceptance and suspension of judgment. Generally, individuals will lower their defenses and disclose sensitive information to the extent they feel the interviewer's aim is not to judge or assign blame, but solely to understand. Gently communicating to the person the belief that, most of the time, most of us are doing the very best we can, diminishes anxiety, creates an atmosphere in which the person feels free to reveal otherwise embarrassing information, and increases the probability that events will be recounted more accurately and uncensored.

Positive relationships are also created by interest, a genuine desire to get to the bottom of the issue, know the end of the story or simply learn more about the person and what they are discussing. Interest is communicated verbally, by asking probing and clarifying questions, and non-verbally, by alertness. Maintaining eye contact, sitting slightly forward in one's seat, and responding with gestures intended to promote the conversation (nodding, moving one's hand to suggest "Go on, I'm with you.", etc.) all represent heightened attention. Individuals are much more likely to maintain a flow of conversation if they are speaking to an interested audience.

Most positive relationships are characterized by a degree of warmth, or commitment to the needs of the interviewee. (Kedushin, 1990). It involves communicating concern for the needs of those being interviewed, so that they do not feel they are merely a repository of needed information. Warmth is conveyed by the quality and content of speech as well as by nonverbal cues. Engaging in informal conversation about the interviewee's health, children or current goals are all effective means of communicating a caring attitude, as is attending to the person's affect or physical needs. A grimace may indicate the person is recalling something painful, or that they are physically uncomfortable. An inquiry into the person's immediate welfare goes a long way in establishing a caring atmosphere.

Few positive relationships exist absent a strong degree of mutual respect. Respect involves behavior which supports self-esteem, (Kadushin, 1990), and dignity. Responding to an individual's innate value and worth - no matter how abject their current status - and extending to them the social courtesies afforded associates and friends, has the effect of calling forth hidden goodness and competencies. It is remarkable to watch a person transform from a surly, resistant curmudgeon to a helpful and invaluable source of information when treated respectfully and kindly.

For those reasons and more, devoting sustained energy to developing rapport with clients and lay witnesses is one of the most critical aspects of mitigation interviews.

Usually, one has little latitude as to where interviews with clients are conducted. The typical setting is a small, poorly ventilated room with equally bad acoustics. Often there are numerous interruptions, and sometimes interviews are abruptly terminated by staff. In some instances a little kvetching goes a long way, and the detention facility will make efforts to improve conditions. More often than not, these circumstances must be accepted and accommodated as best as possible.

Esthetics aside, there are a few non-negotiable requirements for adequate client interviewing. Privacy is paramount and must not be com-promised. For obvious reasons, it is unacceptable to interview a client in the presence of a correctional officer or other inmates. Most of the time this issue can be won without litigation, but on occasion it is necessary for the attorney to legally challenge interview policies.

Full access is also necessary. All too often, attorneys and mental health professionals are expected to conduct interviews through a glass or mesh partition, using a telephone. This policy must be challenged on the basis that it prevents observing the client as he moves naturally and unencumbered; communication is stilted and cannot occur spontaneously; and the barrier can be interpreted - consciously or unconsciously - by the client as signifying the professional's fear of the client; or, alternately, the partition can engender a sense of unease and anxiety.

An associated issue concerns restraints. Whenever possible, the client should be interviewed without restraints of any kind. This may not be possible. Especially in prisons, clients are often required to wear either handcuffs or leg shackles, and, in some instances, both. The use of restraints should be challenged when it compromises the client's comfort to the point he cannot communicate comfortably and undistracted. This is especially true when the client is forced to wear a waist belt to which his hands are tightly fastened. It is impossible to conduct a lengthy interview under such conditions and gives rise to serious ethical considerations.

Issues concerning the physical environment for lay interviews are different from those associated with client interviews. Though it is common to interview at least some family members and friends in jails and prisons, most witnesses are not incarcerated. Lay interviews should be conducted within the home in order to assess the home and gather diagnostic information. In vivo interviews allow one to evaluate dimensions such as socioeconomic status, the number of individuals living in the home and the degree of privacy afforded each, the quality (including safety) of the community, and the psycho-dynamics among individuals residing in the home. One can observe a number of cues which, taken together, vividly narrate the client's story and are rich sources of inquiry: each picture on the wall has a story to tell; holes in the doors may reveal a violent fight the night before; clothes sitting in a tub of cold water means there is no hot water and no funds for the laundry mat; the strong organic stench (associated with lack of hygiene) could imply mental illness, mental retardation or other variables; empty liquor bottles and the stench of gin can be evidence of chronic alcoholism.

An added benefit of home visits is that individuals often feel more relaxed in their own surroundings. A sense of security can compensate for the vulnerability which results from describing painful or embarrassing experiences. Moreover, individuals are more likely to reveal their true personalities in their own homes, rather than present distorted public personae. Equally important, home visits allow the interviewer to achieve or enhance rapport. Holding a baby, helping to fill out social services papers or sharing a cup of coffee make the interviewer appear less threatening and more a participant in the process and the group. Indeed, by the third visit, lay witnesses often come to welcome the interviewer and see him or her as a temporary member of the community.

It is not uncommon that family members - either in an effort to be supportive or out of a sense of "comfort in numbers" - initially congregate together to be interviewed. This practice is undesirable and should be avoided whenever possible. One of the problems with group interviews is that they leave lay witnesses open to misleading cross-examination. (Isn't it true you all got together and came up with these stories? That you "refreshed" each other's memories about his so-called slowness and mental illness?). Group discussions also give rise to increased defense mechanisms which inhibit candid disclosure of important information. For example, in the interest of "protecting" various family members, individuals who were molested may attempt to insulate others from knowledge about the abuse by tailing to reveal information, downplaying its significance, or flatly denying the abuse occurred. Client families are often so dysfunctional and bound by intricate webs of secrets that they engage in historical revisionism in an effort to maintain an idealized image of the family and preserve the current equilibrium - even if it means sacrificing the client's welfare. It is almost impossible to achieve an accurate understanding of events and relationships when family members are together. Only by speaking with them one-on-one and building positive relationships with each can one hope to unearth the truth.

Home visits produce such critical information about the client and his story that failing to include them in the psychosocial history is like trying to describe a country one has never seen.

Beginning. In many respects, the interview begins before two people meet. (Kadushin, 1990). The interviewer generally has some information about the person who will be interviewed - from records or other witnesses - and begins to formulate the goals of the interview and the information needed. If the individual knows about the interview in advance, he or she will likely have ideas - many of them false - about its purpose. When the interviewer's biases and/or the witnesses' fears pose inhibiting variables, it is necessary to spend proportionately more time building relational bridges and finding a way to join with witnesses. Engaging in social amenities helps reduce suspicion and anxiety. Factual information enables witnesses to feel a greater sense of control. Explaining to witnesses the goals of the interview and how they might be of help also facilitates efficiency by directing their attention to relevant topics. Thus, it is important in any mitigation interview to begin with detailed descriptions of who the interviewer is; who the attorneys are and the relationship of the interviewer to the attorneys; the interviewer's understanding of the legal status of the client and the purpose of the legal efforts; and how the information the witness may have (whether that be the client or lay witnesses) can help achieve the legal goals.

Barriers. The interviewer may experience numerous barriers before gaining any substantive information (which is one reason that interviews can take several hours). This is especially true for lay witnesses. They may fail to appear for an interview, requiring subsequent efforts to reschedule the meeting. They may be late to the interview, leaving the interviewer sitting in unfamiliar surroundings indefinitely. Or, they may be away from home visiting friends or drinking at a bar so that the interviewer must first locate them. Such frustrations are aggravating and may influence the interviewer's attitude and behavior. It is important to regain one's composure before interacting with a witness. If this isn't possible, try again another day.

In the home, the interviewer may be forced to contend with loud conversations, fighting or clattering about in the kitchen; t.v's and radios blaring; or repeated interruptions from the telephone or friends dropping in. The witness may have controlled the seating arrangement so that it is difficult to see or hear (Kadushin, 1990), or continually hop up and down to get drinks, cigarettes, tend to food on the stove or children in the yard. In short, the interview may have to proceed amidst chaos. Don't give up. In most instances, tenacity and a continued attitude of empathy and concern defeat the greatest odds. When witnesses perceive the interviewer's unwavering commitment, they generally align with the goals of the cause and become remarkably cooperative and generous.

Types of Questions. Interviews consist of a balance between open- and closed-ended questions. Open-ended questions (What do you remember about John?) can be likened to a broad net which gathers everything in its path. There are a number of advantages to open- ended questions.

They produce spontaneous responses which reveal witnesses' mind sets and points of reference. They suggest to witnesses that the interviewer is interested in anything they want to discuss; allowing witnesses the discretion to direct the interview often produces fruitful areas of inquiry the interviewer had not considered. Relinquishing partial control of the interview to witnesses communicates respect and engenders positive feelings about and greater participation in the interview.

Open-ended questions allow the interviewer to observe how witnesses prioritize information about a given topic.

Open-ended questions are more likely than closed-ended questions to result in affective content; responses include how an individual felt about a certain event or experience. This permits catharsis, which alleviates pain and allows the individual to continue talking unhindered by intrusive thoughts and emotions.

The drawbacks of open-ended questions include that they often produce lengthy, vague responses filled with irrelevant information. (Othmer, 1994). For witnesses with cognitive deficits, open-ended questions are confusing and overwhelming; open-ended questions increase their anxiety and leave them at a loss as to how to respond. Impaired individuals require greater structure and guidance and should be asked more closed- than open-ended questions.

Open-ended questions are time-consuming. Ample time should be allotted to complete open-ended interviews, and the interviewer needs to be well-rested and prepared for the considerable expenditure of energy involved in this lengthy process.

Closed-ended questions are used to get specific, detailed information. They are often used when the interviewer has an understanding of the main idea, but lacks clarity. They narrow the scope of tangential responses, enable the interviewer to regain control of the interview, and provide direction when the interviewer is unsure how to proceed. Closed-ended questions can slow the pace of the interview, reduce emotionality and impose greater focus on important facts. (Kadushin, 1990). Closed-ended questions help stimulate recollection and keep witnesses on the task at hand. They are ideal for obtaining genealogical information and creating timelines. Closed-ended questions can tell an interviewer whether a witness suffers from memory deficits or attentional problems that may signify more serious conditions.

Closed-ended questions may inhibit spontaneous responses, produce false-positive responses (Orthmer, 1994), and fail to yield a narrative data.

The type of question used depends on the goals of the interview and the nature of information sought. The open-ended question is useful for establishing rapport, seeking diagnostic data, exploring emotions, and seeing a topic from the perspective of others. Closed-ended questions are more likely to produce specific, linear information and are useful in checking facts and testing competence and veracity. A common interview format is to start with broad, open-ended questions and gradually become more focused and specific.

Ending the Interview. Ideally, interviews wind down naturally. There are more pauses and less new avenues to pursue. When the interview begins to produce redundant information, the witness seems tired, and interest is waning, one has likely reached a point of diminishing returns. This point will vary from witness to witness depending on their situations and deficits. It should be remembered that one can usually conduct follow-up interviews in order to gather additional information. In fact, in most instances a series of interviews is required to work through defenses and reach more sensitive content.

As the interview comes to a close, the interviewer should convey to witnesses the way in which they have assisted the client, and an understanding that this contribution may not have been without psychic cost. Witnesses should be asked whether the interviewer has their permission to contact them again and, if so, when and where. The interviewer should ask about witnesses' schedules and find out whether there are alternate locations or numbers at which they may be reached.

Before leaving, the interviewer should provide witnesses with information concerning how to reach the attorneys and encourage the witnesses to contact the attorneys if they have questions or want additional information. Witnesses should be made aware of any trial or hearing dates and informed of changes as they occur.

Knowing what to ask and how to ask it is as much an art as a science. Developing good interviewing skills requires practice and feedback. We can use an awareness of the components of successful interviews to guide our practice and increase our skills. There is no meaning outside of context; hence, a chief role of the professional interviewer is to develop a context of trust and commitment to learning the truth about our clients. Conducting mitigation interviews brings us face to face with unfathomable pain, which is absorbed and affects each of us. By telling our clients' stories we bear witness to human devastation and in so doing we create a ripple of healing which begins in each of us.

Kadushin, A. (1990) The Social Work Interview. New York: Columbia University Press.

Othmer, E. and Othmer, S. (1994). The Clinical Interview Using DSM-IV. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Back to the Table of Contents