From Norm Breach to Cascades: Judicial Responses to Suspect Interviewing Across Legal Cultures and the Cross‐Norm Inhibition Effect

Suspect interviewing practices shape not only investigative outcomes but also the legitimacy of criminal justice systems. This article introduces the Cross‐Norm Inhibition Effect (CNIE) as a theoretical framework explaining how tolerance of a single norm violation during interrogation can trigger cascading erosion of related procedural safeguards. Drawing on social‐psychological research on norm inhibition and spillover, the article applies CNIE to suspect interviewing across adversarial, inquisitorial, hybrid, and human‐rights–based legal systems. Using a conceptual‐illustrative methodology, it analyzes recent high‐court decisions across legal cultures to examine how judicial responses may contain, amplify, or reverse CNIE cascades, suggesting that CNIE functions as a conditional risk amplifier rather than a deterministic process. Weak safeguards and confession dominance may increase vulnerability to cascading distortions, whereas transparency, redundancy, and consistent judicial oversight may generate reinforcing compliance dynamics. Accordingly, this article contributes to debates on the implementation of the Méndez Principles and related rights‐based interviewing reforms.