Investigative interviewing

Last updated

Investigative interviewing is a non-coercive method for questioning victims, witnesses and suspects of crimes. [1] Generally, investigative interviewing "involves eliciting a detailed and accurate account of an event or situation from a person to assist decision-making". [2] This interviewing technique is ethical and research based, and it stimulates safe and effective gathering of evidence. The goal of an investigative interview is to obtain accurate, reliable and actionable information. The method aims at maximising the likelihood of obtaining relevant information and minimise the risks of contaminating evidence obtained in police questioning. The method has been described as a tool for mitigating the use of torture, coercion and psychological manipulation, and for averting forced confessions and errors of justice leading to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. [3]

Contents

The term investigative interviewing was introduced in the UK in the early 1990s to represent a shift in police interviewing away from a confession oriented approach and towards evidence gathering. Traditionally, the main aim of an interrogation was to obtain a confession from a suspect in order to secure a conviction. Thus, investigative interviewing contrasts pervasive interrogations techniques aimed at making the suspect break down and confess. [4] The stark difference between these two approaches to police interviewing has led some authors to argue that the term "interrogation" should be scrapped altogether as it is inherently coercive and aimed at obtaining a confession. [5]

Much of the scientific base of investigative interviewing stems from social psychology and cognitive psychology, including studies of human memory. The method aims at mitigating the effects of inherent human fallacies and cognitive biases such as suggestibility, confirmation bias, priming and false memories. In order to conduct a successful interview the interviewer needs to be able to (1) create good rapport with the interviewee, (2) describe the purpose of the interview, (3) ask open-ended questions, and (4) be willing to explore alternative hypotheses. [6] Before any probing questions are asked, the interviewees are encouraged to give their free, uninterrupted account.

In the interim report dated 5 August 2016 to the UN General Assembly of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, the investigative interviewing method is presented at length as an example of best practice. [7]

Since the implementation of cognitive interviwing, this techbnique has undergone significant changes. These changes have enhanced the process of memory recall in various law enforcement investigations. (1) The development of structured protocols has made cognitive interviews more systematic. Beyond the rapport building, and opend-ended questions, it encourages the witness to visualize the event enhancing memory recall. This structure helps reduce bias and increases the reliability of the information gathered. (2) Advancements in recording technology have allowed interviews to be documented more accurately. Video and audio recordings provide a reliable reference that can be reviewed later for analysis, ensuring that the details are not lost or misinterpreted. (3) Cognitive interview techniques have evolved for use with different populations, including children and individuals with cognitive impairments. Tailoring the approach to meet the needs of various witnesses ensures that all voices can be heard effectively. (4) Enhanced training programs for law enforcement personnel have been developed to ensure that interviewers are skilled in applying cognitive interview techniques. Standardized training helps maintain a high level of competency across different departments and regions. These improvements have contributed to making cognitive interviews a more effective tool in gathering accurate eyewitness testimonies, ultimately leading to better outcomes in investigations.

By country

United Kingdom

The PEACE model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate) for police interviewing was developed in the United Kingdom in response to a number of documented forced confessions and associated wrongful convictions in the 1980s and 1990s. Most notable were the cases associated with the conflict (the Troubles) in Northern Ireland, and terrorism, such as the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four-cases.

Norway

Investigative interviewing was adapted by the Norwegian police in 2001. [8] The acronym used for the training programme for the Norwegian police is KREATIV (or CREATIVE in English) and is composed of phrases reflecting the values and principles upon which the method is based. These are; Communication; Rule of Law; Ethics and empathy; Active awareness; Trust through openness/transparency; and Information. The "V" stands for Science ("Vitenskap" in Norwegian, "Wissenschaft" in German), referring to the method's foundation in research. Professor Ray Bull and DCI David Murthwaite (Merseyside Police) were brought from the UK to Norway to help train the trainers and initiate the programme. A module on how and when evidence should be disclosed during interviews with suspects was included, distinguishing it from the PEACE method.

New Zealand

The New Zealand Police published a practical tool and a compilation of literature on investigative interviewing in 2005 [9] and underwent reforms to investigative interviewing both in policy and practice from 2007. [10]

Related Research Articles

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interrogation</span> Interviews by police, military or intelligence personnel

Interrogation is interviewing as commonly employed by law enforcement officers, military personnel, intelligence agencies, organized crime syndicates, and terrorist organizations with the goal of eliciting useful information, particularly information related to suspected crime. Interrogation may involve a diverse array of techniques, ranging from developing a congenial rapport with the subject to torture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interview</span> Structured series of questions and answers

An interview is a structured conversation where one participant asks questions, and the other provides answers. In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation between an interviewer and an interviewee. The interviewer asks questions to which the interviewee responds, usually providing information. That information may be used or provided to other audiences immediately or later. This feature is common to many types of interviews – a job interview or interview with a witness to an event may have no other audience present at the time, but the answers will be later provided to others in the employment or investigative process. An interview may also transfer information in both directions.

The Reid technique is a method of interrogation. The system was developed in the United States by John E. Reid in the 1950s. Reid was a polygraph expert and former Chicago police officer. The technique is known for creating a high pressure environment for the interviewee, followed by sympathy and offers of understanding and help, but only if a confession is forthcoming. Since its spread in the 1970s, it has been widely utilized by police departments in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miscarriage of justice</span> Conviction of a person for a crime that they did not commit

A miscarriage of justice occurs when an unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.

A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime which the individual did not commit. Although such confessions seem counterintuitive, they can be made voluntarily, perhaps to protect a third party, or induced through coercive interrogation techniques. When some degree of coercion is involved, studies have found that subjects with highly sophisticated intelligence or manipulated by their so-called "friends" are more likely to make such confessions. Young people are particularly vulnerable to confessing, especially when stressed, tired, or traumatized, and have a significantly higher rate of false confessions than adults. Hundreds of innocent people have been convicted, imprisoned, and sometimes sentenced to death after confessing to crimes they did not commit—but years later, have been exonerated. It was not until several shocking false confession cases were publicized in the late 1980s, combined with the introduction of DNA evidence, that the extent of wrongful convictions began to emerge—and how often false confessions played a role in these.

The Gudjonsson suggestibility scale (GSS) is a psychological test that measures suggestibility of a subject. It was created in 1983 in England by psychologist Gísli Hannes Guðjónsson, who had been a detective in Iceland. It involves reading a short story to the subject and testing recall. This test has been used in court cases in several jurisdictions but has been the subject of various criticisms.

Richard Jason Ofshe is an American sociologist and professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his expert testimony relating to coercion in small groups, confessions, and interrogations.

Statement analysis is a technique used to determine whether a suspect is telling the truth or being deceptive based on linguistic indicators. The basic principles of statement analysis are straightforward: a suspect always reveals much more than they realize. Language moves so quickly that no one has complete control over what they say and try to conceal.

The cognitive interview (CI) is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses and victims about what they remember from a crime scene. Using four retrievals, the primary focus of the cognitive interview is to make witnesses and victims of a situation aware of all the events that transpired. The interview aids in minimizing both misinterpretation and the uncertainty that is otherwise seen in the questioning process of traditional police interviews. Cognitive interviews reliably enhance the process of memory retrieval and have been found to elicit memories without generating inaccurate accounts or confabulations. Cognitive interviews are increasingly used in police investigations, and training programs and manuals have been created.

Saul Kassin is an American academic, who serves as a professor of psychology at the City University of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Massachusetts Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed; however, this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased. As a result of this, many countries, and states within the United States, are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.

Michael Gelles is an American forensic psychologist. He is notable for the role he played in uncovering the unauthorized use of abusive techniques during the interrogation of captives held in extrajudicial detention, apprehended during the "war on terror".

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the legality of deceptive interrogation tactics by the police.

Eyewitness memory is a person's episodic memory for a crime or other witnessed dramatic event. Eyewitness testimony is often relied upon in the judicial system. It can also refer to an individual's memory for a face, where they are required to remember the face of their perpetrator, for example. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memories is sometimes questioned because there are many factors that can act during encoding and retrieval of the witnessed event which may adversely affect the creation and maintenance of the memory for the event. Experts have found evidence to suggest that eyewitness memory is fallible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Misinformation effect</span> Effect of later events on a previous memory

The misinformation effect occurs when a person's recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate because of post-event information. The misinformation effect has been studied since the mid-1970s. Elizabeth Loftus is one of the most influential researchers in the field. One theory is that original information and the misleading information that was presented after the fact become blended together. Another theory is that the misleading information overwrites the original information. Scientists suggest that because the misleading information is the most recent, it is more easily retrieved.

Imagination inflation is a type of memory distortion that occurs when imagining an event that never happened increases confidence in the memory of the event.

<i>Scenes of a Crime</i> 2011 American film

Scenes of a Crime is a documentary film that focuses on the case of Adrian P. Thomas who was the subject of nearly 10 hours of interrogation by Troy, New York police, culminating in a controversial confession and high profile murder trial. The film won multiple festival awards, a Gotham Award for "Best Film Not Playing At Theater Near You," played theatrically and was broadcast nationally. Reviews of the film were highly favorable.

Richard Patrick Zuley is a former homicide detective in the United States who had a 37-year career in the Chicago Police Department. He is most known for obtaining confessions from suspects by torture. Since the early 2000s, some of these convictions have been investigated and overturned as wrongful, following allegations that he had tortured and/or framed suspects. Since 2013 he has been the subject of several civil suits from inmates claiming abuse and frame-ups to gain convictions.

The PEACE method of investigative interviewing is a five stage process in which investigators try to build rapport and allow a criminal suspect to provide their account of events uninterrupted, before presenting the suspect with any evidence of inconsistencies or contradictions. It is used to obtain a full account of events from a suspect rather than just seeking a confession - which is the goal of the Reid technique, in which interrogators are more aggressive, accusatory, and threatening in terms of proposing consequences for the suspect's failure to confess to the crime.

References

  1. Milne, Rebecca and Rull, Ray (1999). Investigative Interviewing. Psychology and Practice. Chichester UK: Wiley.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. "Centre for Investigative Interviewing". This definition has been used by the Centre for Investigative Interviewing, Australia. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  3. Rachlew, Asbjørn (14 March 2017). "From interrogating to interviewing suspects of terror: Towards a new mindset". Penal Reform International.
  4. Gudjonsson, Gisli H. (2007). Investigative interviewing. Handbook of criminal investigation. Routledge. pp. 466–492. ISBN   9781843921882.
  5. Griffiths, Andy, and Asbjørn Rachlew (2018). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: The application of psychology. In The Psychology of Criminal Investigation. Routledge. pp. 154–178.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Powell, Martine B., Ron P. Fisher, and Rebecca Wright (2005). Investigative Interviewing in Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. The Guilford Press. pp. 11–42.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. Méndez, Juan E. (5 August 2016). "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Interim report to the UN General Assembly. 5 August 2016". digitallibrary.un.org. UN. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  8. Fahsing, I. A., & Rachlew, A. (2013). Investigative interviewing in the Nordic region. In International developments in investigative interviewing. Willan. pp. 65–91.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. Schollum, Mary (2005). "Investigative interviewing: The literature. Wellington, New Zealand" (PDF). Office of the Commissioner of Police. Retrieved 15 January 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  10. Westera, Nina J., Rachel Zajac, Deirdre A. Brown (2017). Witness interviewing practices in New Zealand. In International Developments and Practices in Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation. Volume 1: Victims and witnesses. London: Routledge. pp. 123–134.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)