Forensic Psychology For Dummies (83 page)
Read Forensic Psychology For Dummies Online
Authors: David Canter
If the offender has a criminal background, he may feel that he has more to lose by giving himself up. Anyone negotiating needs to take that into account by giving him options he may not have considered.
Criminal kidnap for ransom:
Kidnapping people for financial gain is very different from a siege in which an angry husband threatens his estranged wife to stop her leaving him. The ransom element creates a negotiation built around threats in which the kidnapper and the negotiator are each trying to control the situation. Threats to harm the victim are used to persuade the authorities to pay up, but the negotiator can offer safe passage or other inducements to the kidnapper. But although a kidnap for ransom may seem like a straightforward business deal, this situation requires a delicate negotiation that recognises that the kidnappers may not be rational businessmen. They may have other reasons for the kidnap than just trying to get money, such as showing the authorities to be fools.
The business plan of gangs that make money frequently out of ransom requires that they hold on to their franchise and keep other gangs out of their territory. Some drug cartels in Mexico, such as the notorious Los Zetas for example, maintain a strong identity and kill people in other gangs who have the temerity to carry out kidnappings in their domain.
Considerable differences exist between countries in how kidnapping and hostage-taking incidents are handled, with pervading attitudes towards criminals influencing how such situations are dealt with. Some authorities strive to avoid loss of life, even of the kidnapper, at all costs. For others, the primary need is to make a stand against such events and the kidnapper is regarded as an outlaw who deserves to die.
In some countries, especially in South America, notably Brazil, people so protect themselves against kidnapping that organised gangs have taken to abducting pet dogs that have to be taken outside for a walk, demanding large ransoms for their release.
When the hostage-taking is part of a political act, in which negotiations may concern the release of prisoners or other concessions, the challenges to the authorities are considerable. The constant problem exists that any concessions may be regarded as political weakness and be seen as just encouraging future kidnappings. In addition, the kidnap itself can have symbolic significance and great propaganda value. Consequently some countries refuse to entertain any consideration of negotiating with kidnappers, whereas others do have a history of conceding to political kidnappers’ requests.
Dealing with kidnapping
The negotiation process, of course, requires contact with the kidnappers or their agents, which in itself can be difficult to achieve. The kidnappers want to avoid indicating their location and the negotiators have to be sure that the people claiming to be the hostage-takers really are, because many people may attempt to falsely indicate they are the kidnappers when they’re not. The film title
Proof of Life
is based on the demand that any negotiator starts with: that the victim is indeed still alive and under the control of the agents with whom negotiations are taking place.
Prevention is better than cure
Obviously, avoiding hostage situations altogether is the best solution. That requires an understanding and awareness of the circumstances under which someone may be abducted, held hostage or kidnapped. Although not possible in sieges with a domestic background, ransom requests and political kidnappings can be tackled in areas where kidnap is virtually an industry and the procedure is well known. In some countries in South America, for instance, networks exist where one group does the actual kidnapping, before the victims are passed on to a sort of wholesaler who keeps them, while a third group does the ransom negotiation. In such circumstances, anyone who’s at risk has to have armed guards and live in protected gated communities.
The negotiation is then a struggle for power in which the negotiator tries to convince the kidnappers that they’re in control while moving their decision-making in the negotiator’s desired direction. Four strategies for doing this have been identified:
The negotiator acknowledges that the kidnappers have authority over the hostage and in so doing leads them to feel confident that they have room to manoeuvre. For example, the negotiator may say, ‘I know you’re determined to follow through on this, but I don’t want you to do anything that will make matters worse.’
This strategy puts the negotiator and the hostage-takers together as part of the same group against a third party, such as the political masters or negotiator’s superiors. It builds some sort of relationship between the negotiator and kidnappers and makes the latter aware that they’re part of a much bigger picture over which neither may have control. The negotiator may say ‘I’d like to get you out of here in a car, but my boss won’t allow it.’