Take the 2-minute tour ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Criminal Minds S9 Ep2 - "The Inspired (Part II)"

When they make arrests at the end:

There seems to be some difficulty over whether they have Jesse or Wallace. They use his learned nervous tick as a differentiator and arrest him accordingly.

Why would they need to do this?

Surely they could just ask him questions that Jesse would know the answer to (e.g. who are these pictures of? What happens in a normal day at work?) and demonstrate it was Wallace by his lack of knowledge of Jesse's life? Also, the BAU would knew he suffered from hallucinations, if they kept him talking long enough he would eventually give himself away.

Perhaps there is there some aspect of the American legal system that I am not familiar with? Or did miss something in the episode?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I believe there are two things going on here, one with the show, the second with the legal system.

First, the show is about the Behavioral Analysis Unit. To capture their guy through interrogation seems wrong with the premise of the show. Using behavior is much more fitting.

Second, in the US legal system, all incarcerated (arrested or imprisoned) individuals have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent. An attorney would advise against them talking, while they both may chose not to talk. Putting either/both of them into a room(s) and interrogating them may not produce any information. Besides, it was far easier for the BAU to detect who was whom from the tick than spending hours in interrogation which may or may not have produced results.

share|improve this answer
    
Ah - so if they interrogated him and asked about Jesse's life then he could simply not answer and that would not count against him? Is that how it works? –  Stefan Jan 14 at 12:14
    
Exactly. It's called protection from self-incrimination. The 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides us protection from this. –  Paulster2 Jan 14 at 12:28
1  
I see, the UK does not have the same concept. If you refuse to answer questions then the fact that you would not answer can be held against you (although I have no personal experience as I am too boring to have ever been arrested!). Thanks. –  Stefan Jan 14 at 14:12
1  
HAHA! Glad to say my life is too boring to have experienced anything like this either :D –  Paulster2 Jan 14 at 14:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.