Investigative interviewing: the literature - New Zealand Police

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Investigative Interviewing: viewing: THE LITERATURE Research on the topic also concludes that suspects who confess because of the first two reasons are much more likely to be satisfied with what has happened than those who confess because of the third reason (Gudjonsson, 1992). An alternative view of how evidence of guilt is secured comes from Sanders (1994, p788), who says this can be from: • suspects who simply and speedily confess (often those against whom police have plenty of evidence anyway) • suspects who want to make a ‘deal’ (confessions in exchange for favours or reduced charges) • suspects who are intimidated by the fact that they are being questioned on police (hostile) territory • suspects who are informally interviewed before and after formal interviews [Sanders discusses this latter point at some length, providing references supporting widespread use of informal ‘chats’ with suspects] • suspects who are coerced by dubious questioning techniques into making admissions • suspects who are ‘verballed’ through having their words distorted (usually in written statements) • suspects who make false confessions (howsoever they arise). The majority of Sanders’ points above suggest a degree of oppression. They ignore the fact that suspects may confess because of good interviewing. Interviewing suspects Ede and Shepherd (2000, p85) set out the three-stage approach taken by police forces in England and Wales to interviewing a suspect: • the suspect’s agenda - giving the suspect the opportunity to say what he or she wants to, or raise issues that he or she wishes to cover; • the police agenda - informing and questioning the suspect about matters considered by the investigating officer to be material; • challenge - confronting the suspect with anomalies and deceptions in the previous stages. This approach, which occurs during the ‘account’ stage of the PEACE interview, is also advocated, albeit using different terminology, by recent American literature. For example, Walters (2002) claims that the fundamentals of productive suspect interviewing include: • the narration phase - the ‘listening’ stage where the suspect does most of the talking (and can choose to tell the truth or engage in deception). This phase also includes any questioning interviewers do to clarify their interpretation of the suspect’s account; • the cross-examination phase - where the interviewer asks specific questions about statements made by the suspect in the narration phase, and raises and explores important points in greater depth and detail. Both the American and English literature emphasise the need to impress on the suspect that the interviewer is listening. This increases the stress experienced by the suspect, especially when he or she is attempting to evade issues or lie. A focused and reasoned attack on the suspect’s account during the challenge/crossexamination stage can wear down and eventually destroy the suspect’s confidence in his or her ability to maintain their story. JUVENILE SUSPECTS Most police officers will have to interview a significant number of young persons suspected of committing crimes as part of their everyday policing tasks. Yet the interviewing of juveniles as suspects appears to have been given much less attention than interviewing them as witnesses. For example, an earlier section in this review outlined recent legislative measures to meet the needs of vulnerable witnesses, including children. Evans and Webb (1993) carried out a study involving the analysis of 60 randomly selected tape recorded interviews from Merseyside Police in May 1990 with suspects aged 10 to 16. They found that: the interviews were short (an average of 7 mins 22 secs); interviewers spent almost 25% of the time stating “facts” as opposed to questioning (and much more so for those aged 10-13 compared with those aged 14-16); around half of all questioning comprised counter-productive and risky questions; and officers were typically directive in their approach (i.e. talking at the juveniles rather than with them). Another study (Evans, 1993 cited in Milne & Bull, 1999) which was for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1993 found that: interviews with juvenile suspects were shorter than with adults; a higher proportion made quick admissions (77% compared with up to 68% for adults); there was widespread use of ‘persuasive’ tactics (such as saying to the juvenile that the truth will come out/you’ll feel better for getting it off your chest); and that in the 23% of remaining cases where the juvenile suspects did not readily confess, half did eventually confess. 40
REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING Evans and Webb (1993) suggest that interview training should involve practising with children. From the RCCJ study the crucial factor would appear to be around the high rate of quick admissions. If this is common, there should be little need for police to use tactics and questioning styles that may be seen as oppressive. General improvements in interview training whereby officers concentrate on engaging with the suspect and getting information that confirms the person’s guilt or establishes his or her innocence should have spin-offs for the interviewing of child suspects. Fear of embarrassment Fear of retaliation “Saving face” is considered a central need of many interview participants. Interviewees will act defensively to avoid being humiliated. Interviewees may be uncooperative because they fear reprisal from the guilty party or others. When interviewees fear for their own safety or that of a family member, their resistance to cooperating can be difficult to overcome. RESISTANCE FROM INTERVIEWEES Interviewees who resist attempts to get them to talk can be enormously frustrating for police. According to Shepherd (1993): “Resistance can be defined as the verbal, physical and emotional behaviour of an interviewee which blocks an interviewer’s efforts to establish appropriate conversation to achieve the investigative aim, to establish a working relationship, and to establish the facts of the matter. Unfortunately, many police officers have a rudimentary understanding of who resists and why these individuals resist” (p6). Understanding who resists and why There are numerous reasons why someone will fail to cooperate in a police interview. Some have their roots in psychophysiology. For example, when a person is confronted by a “threat” - whether physical or psychological - the body has “fight, flight or freeze” mechanisms that automatically activate (Morgan, 1999). In these situations, a person’s pulse may race, blood pressure may rise, breathing may become shallow and quick, the mouth becomes dry, and so on. A great deal of energy is expended when an individual is faced with a “threatening” situation, such as a police interview. Several writers (e.g., Yeschke, 2003; Zulawski & Wicklander, 2001) provide other reasons for resisting: Fear of loss to themselves Fear of legal proceedings Fear of harming someone else Fear of self-disclosure Fear of restitution Interviewees may worry about the inconvenience and financial loss they face by cooperating with police. Interviewees may have had little contact with the criminal justice system or have a negative view of it and be afraid of what involvement could mean. In some instances they may fear callous or indifferent treatment from legal authorities. Even a sense of civic duty to cooperate with an investigation may not be enough to overcome a strong reluctance to provide information that could cause harm to another. A reluctance to share their inner selves with strangers may lead some people to being defensive and evasive. Some suspects will not confess because they feel they could not compensate the victim for the damage or loss their actions caused. Table 4: Reasons why people may resist talking to police Factors like these influence the interviewee’s comfort and create a vulnerability that must be understood and catered for by the interviewer. Although a police interview will always be an unnatural setting - the interviewer is not a friend, neighbour, or relative after all - Yeschke (2003) says that with training the interviewer “can exhibit human warmth and thereby psychologically comfort them enough to encourage temporary compliance” (p21). 41
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 94 and 95:
Investigative Interviewing: viewing
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?