Investigative interviewing: the literature - New Zealand Police

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Investigative Interviewing: viewing: THE LITERATURE According to Williams (2000) up to 90 percent of an investigator’s activity involves gathering, sorting, compiling, and evaluating information. The investigator cannot function without information, and information cannot be obtained without help from the public and those involved. The testimonial evidence provided is usually given orally and might subsequently be recorded in written form. Some interviews, mainly those with suspects, are recorded electronically (Milne & Bull, 1999). The literature reinforces that quality investigations require quality investigative interviews. For example, Maguire (2003) says that one of the most prominent features of both ‘generalist’ and major inquiry investigative work is its heavy reliance on interview evidence. Similarly, the famous ‘Miranda’ judgement describes the interview room as “the nerve centre of crime detection” (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966, p501). Other commentators clearly share this view: “The investigative task is the core aspect of policing today and what emerges from that core task is the key element of the ability to interview” (Evans & Webb, 1993, p37). “Solid interviewing skills stand as the cornerstone in law enforcement’s arsenal of crime-fighting weapons” (Einspahr, 2000, p20). THE INTERVIEWER Yeschke’s view (1993, pxviii) is that police officers “have no innate ability to conduct affective, effective, and proficient interviews. We are no more born with the skills to collect testimonial evidence than we are born with the innate ability to handle firearms properly or to provide first aid.” Others suggest that in most policing agencies, there are some officers who do seem naturally able to obtain detailed information from witnesses and good admissions from suspects. The majority however, struggle to do the same (Morgan, 1999; Shepherd and Kite, 1989). In any case, there is a strong perception that with the right instruction, most officers can learn to be effective interviewers (Baldwin, 1993; Gudjonsson et al, 1992; Memon et al, 1994; Ord et al, 2004; Williamson, 1994). On the whole, research suggests that without the benefit of proper training most police officers are destined to be poor interviewers (Milne & Bull, 1999). Qualities in a good interviewer There is much advice in the literature as to what makes a good interviewer. For example Swanson, Chamelin and Territo (2002) say the aim of interview training is to produce an interviewer who can make him- or herself easy to talk to through the appropriate use of vocal inflection, modulation, and emphasis; is able to convey appropriate emotional responses at various times as needed (e.g., sympathy, anger, fear and joy); is impartial, flexible and open minded; and knows how to use psychology, salesmanship, and dramatics. Yeschke (1993, pxvii) contends that good interviewers need to demonstrate a strong sense of self-awareness, confidence, purpose, vision, dedication, and commitment to the highest professional standards. Wicklander & Zulawski (2003) set out a more structured profile of a successful interviewer. They say the officer’s attitude should be: objective, cordial and polite, eventempered, sincere, interested and understanding. His or her posture should be: upright, frontally aligned, leaning forward on occasion, and open (no crossed arms). The officer should maintain eye contact when asking the suspect questions and when they answer, although casual breaks of eye contact are essential. The authors acknowledge that the interrogation (US) or challenge (England and Wales) part of an interview requires other characteristics. They recommend, for example, a confident, persistent demeanor, a firm tone of voice (but not aggressive or angry), the use of hand gestures when talking (palms up, arms open), looking away when the suspect gives denials, and using softer or louder tones when making positive or negative points. Core skills The Centrex training material (NCOF, 2004) emphasises that the four core skills needing to be developed in police interviewers are the ability to plan and prepare for interviews, the ability to establish rapport, effective listening and effective questioning. These will take officers through any interview. More advanced skills are required of specialist interviewers and interview advisors. Whilst it is possible to set out the characteristics of a good interviewer and the skills that person needs, some of the literature suggests a wide gap between this ideal and actual interviewers. For example Sear and Stephenson (1997, cited in Cherryman & Bull, 2000) found little relationship between the personality scores of officers and their interviewing style. Even those who scored highly for characteristics such as conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness were often found to display the same poor interviewing style as 16
REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING many of their colleagues. Clearly, training alone is not enough to overcome the effects of other influences on interviewing style. UNDERSTANDING FACTORS INFLUENCING INTERVIEWS Interviews require a combination of art and skill that must be cultivated and practised. Not all people who possess information needed by the investigator are willing to share it (Yeschke, 2003). For example, witnesses may have various motivations and perceptions that could influence their responses during an interview. These may be based on either conscious choices or subconscious stimuli, or on the witness’s positive or negative attitudes to police (Gudjonsson, 1992). In addition, gaining information from groups like the elderly and children requires special skills on the part of the investigator. Similarly, characteristics such as the time and place can hinder the interview (Heaton-Armstrong et al, 1999). Each of these conditions must be dealt with. The most important task of the interviewer is to gather as much relevant and reliable information as possible (Gudjonsson, 1992). The successful interviewer, therefore, must understand the techniques of interviewing and know why people are willing or unwilling to impart information (Yeschke, 2003). Given the complexities and variety of investigative interviews, the interviewer’s own capabilities and limitations must also be recognised. Personality and the manner in which interpersonal communications are handled can greatly influence the quality and quantity of information obtained. Much of the literature describes the ideal interviewer as someone who can convey a range of emotions as well as empathy and sincerity at various times and as needed (e.g., Shepherd, 1991). It is also important for the interviewer to keep an open mind. The interviewer must be receptive to all information, regardless of its nature. In addition, the successful interviewer must have an insatiable curiosity (Williams, 2000), and acquiring an accurate and reliable storehouse of information about human behaviour is a must (Gudjonsson, 1992). interview on the essential issues. Problems arise, however, when officers approach the interview with unfounded or erroneous assessments of the incident in question. It is essential that interviewing training teaches officers to minimise the potential for bias (Baldwin, 1994). WITNESS OR SUSPECT INTERVIEWS - WHICH ARE MORE IMPORTANT? McGurk, Carr and McGurk (1993) found that the interviewing of witnesses and suspects were amongst the most frequent tasks in everyday policing. Moreover, their police respondents reported that taking statements, interviewing witnesses, and interviewing suspects were their three most important investigative tasks, with interviewing suspects rated as the most important of all. This emphasis on the importance of suspect interviews is not surprising. In her research examining the management and supervision of interviews, Stockdale (1993) found that police officers tended to have a restricted view of ‘interviewing’. At any mention of police interviews they would automatically take it as meaning only interviews with suspects. Mention of victim and witness interviews would only come when attention was specifically drawn to them. Strongman (1994, p16) observed the same phenomenon in the New Zealand setting: “It as though, to a member of the New Zealand Police, ‘interviewing’ means ‘interviewing suspects’”. This emphasis however is not so evident in the training material produced by forces in England and Wales (see, for example, CPTU, 1992a; CFIS, 2004) which clearly spells out the equal status of all investigative interviews. That is not to say that interviews with victims, witnesses and suspects are identical. There is a huge body of rules and rights that apply to suspect interviews but not to witness interviews (CPTU, 1992b; Maguire, 2003). Despite these differences, commentators agree that: “In general, interviewing witnesses, complainants and victims is just as much a specialised practice as interviewing suspects, but it relies on different techniques” (Strongman, 1994, p17). Research in England and Wales in recent years has found little sign of the use of oppressive or otherwise negative tactics (Clarke & Milne, 2001). Rather, any criticisms are about a general lack of skill. Many police officers enter the interview with assumptions, expectations and hypotheses about the event they are investigating (Ede & Shepherd, 2000). If the officer’s beliefs are well-founded, this may serve to focus the 17
Page 1: R E V I E W O F I N V E S T I G AT
Page 4 and 5: ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mary Schollum (BA,
Page 6 and 7: Investigative Interviewing: viewing
Page 70 and 71:
Investigative Interviewing: viewing
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
show all

Investigative interviewing: the literature - New Zealand Police

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?