Transcript Norway Keynote 2010

Norway Keynote 2010
Professor Ray Bull
University of Leicester
2
Principles of Investigative Interviewing
Many of you will be aware that in England and Wales in 1992 the ‘Steering
Group On Investigative Interviewing’ (set up by the Association of Chief
Police Officers and the Home Office – which was the relevant government
ministry) approved for the first time a number of “Principles of
Investigative Interviewing” which included
• “The role of investigative interviewing is to obtain accurate and reliable
information from suspects, witnesses or victims in order to discover the
truth…”
• “Investigative interviewing should be approached with an open mind”
• “Information obtained from the person being interviewed should always
tested against what the interviewing officer already knows…”
• “When questioning anyone a police officer must act fairly…”
• “Vulnerable people, whether victims, witnesses or suspects, must be
treated with particular consideration at all times”.
3. New booklets and training courses
(For more on the early evolution of the notion of ‘investigative
interviewing’ see Williamson, 1993; the ‘Preface’ in Bull, Valentine,
and Williamson, 2009.)
This “Steering Group” largely involved experienced police officers who
took advice from a variety of sources, including the relevant
psychological literature and psychologists.
Also in 1992
1. two new booklets on the new PEACE approach to investigative
interviewing (which adheres to the principles I have just
mentioned) were distributed to every police officer in England and
Wales (all 127,000 of them)
2. the new PEACE training courses began. (For accounts of the
PEACE approach see Bull and Milne, 2004; Milne and Bull, 1999.)
4. Advice from professionals in the USA
In 2002 Holmes (formerly of the Miami Police Department) published a book
entitled Criminal interrogation: A modern format for interrogating
suspects in which he stated (p.x) that “When you finish reading this book, I
hope you have one predominate thought, ‘You don’t obtain confessions by
asking the suspect questions. You have to convince a suspect to confess
by the use of persuasive interrogational arguments’”.
With regard to questioning, Holmes stated that “The literature is devoid of
information on how to question. Oddly enough, I don’t even know of a
law school that teaches the act of cross-examination” (p.15).
Whereas this may be an accurate account of Holmes’ knowledge, it is not a
valid account of the literature on questioning available world-wide.
Holmes continued that “The primary purpose of questioning is to
determine that the transition to accusatory interrogation should be made”
(p.16).
5
Once a suspect has confessed Holmes (2002) recommended
that a “formal confession should be taken without delay
while a suspect is in a cooperative mood” (p.115).
He also recommended that this post-interrogation/interview
formal confession be audio or video recorded, even though
he noted that “There is, however, one major drawback …..
In court, the investigator is invariably asked ….. ‘Why didn’t
you record the entire interview of the defendant?’ ”.
He stated that “I never felt entirely comfortable answering
that question. I never said it, but I often wanted to say ‘I
didn’t want to give you a sword you could stick in me’ ”
(p.116).
6. More advice from the USA
Fairly recently in 2005 in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin an instructor (Boetig) in the
Law Enforcement Communication Unit at the FBI contended that “…interrogations
are less of a conversation than a monologue by investigators in which they provide
suspects with acceptable reasons to confess” (p.13/14).
These reasons were said to be of one of three types – rationalisation, projection of
blame, and minimisation,
the first of which “offers suspects the opportunity to make the crimes appear soundly
acceptable”; in relation to this Boetig stated that “Investigators may rationalise a
crime merely by explaining to the suspect that the deviant act was logical
behaviour that anyone in his position would have done …” (p.15).
the second “distances suspects from appearing solely responsible”; an example of
projection could involve putting “… blame on the people that taught them to be
criminals, such as siblings, peers, parents, and fellow inmates” (p.18).
and the third “produces less guilt or shame for the suspect” (p.14); Boetig suggested
that an example of minimisation could involve “… an explanation of his genetic
predispositions to deviance….” (p.16).
7. But has such advice been based on research?
In 2010 Chris Meissner and colleagues noted
that in the USA “ …interrogative methods
currently available to law enforcement have
no scientific foundation but rather have been
offered (or better, sold) by former
investigators who purport that the validity of
those techniques is based on their success…”
(Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010, p. 122123).
8. The views of suspects?
Neither of the books that I have so far mentioned seemed to
have benefitted from research on the views of
suspects/offenders concerning how they were interviewed.
Holmberg and Christianson’s (2002) ground-breaking research
study (also see Deslauriers-Varin & St-Yves,2009; Kebbell,
Alison & Hurren, 2008; St-Yves & Deslauriers-Varin, 2006)
emphasised that suspects/offenders interviewed in a
dominant, coercive way may be lees likely to confess than
those interviewed in a humane way.
In 2005 O’Connor and Carson (both highly experienced
professional interviewers) found that the predominant
reason the confessors (to child molestation) gave for why
they confessed was the respect shown to them by the
interviewers.
9. Resistance
Nearly twenty five years ago Gudjonsson and Clark’s
new (1986) theory focussed on three main
factors that are likely to influence suspects’
coping in police interviews.
The resultant coping strategy would affect whether
suspects became suggestible or resistant. If
interviewers provided ‘negative feedback’ some
suspects will respond to this with ‘resistance’.
Such resistance may also arise in suspects who
are/become suspicious of the interviewers’
intentions. (Also see Gudjonsson, 2006.)
10. Research in the USA
One of the most important studies ever published
concerning what actually happens when the police
interview suspects is by Leo (1996). This seminal study,
conducted in the USA, is deserving of wider and deeper
attention around the world than it has heretofore
received.
Leo noted that the Court (Justice Earl Warren) in Miranda
V Arizona (1966) commented on the absence of firsthand knowledge of what actually takes place during
police interviews with suspects and that it called for
research on this topic. In the ensuing thirty years little
such research was conducted.
11. Leo (cont’d)
Leo’s own study was based on his nine months of ‘fieldwork’ with the
Criminal Investigation Division of a large, urban police department
(thought by many, Leo reports, to be one of the leading police forces in
the USA). He sat in on 122 interviews (involving 45 detectives) and he also
watched video recordings of a further 60 interviews conducted by two
other police organisations.
In his 1996 publication Leo demonstrated good awareness of the possible
influence his presence had on the 122 live interviews and he was able to
compare these with the 60 recorded interviews (where he, of course, was
not present). He noted that he tended to be excluded from the more
serious cases, though this was not always so.
Leo coded each of the interviews for 25 potential tactics/techniques which he
derived from those (i) advocated in police manuals, (ii) taught on training
courses, and (iii) used in popular culture.
12. Leo (cont’d)
Leo found that
the detectives usually began by confronting the suspects with evidence suggesting
guilt, either real/true evidence (85% of interrogations) or false evidence(30%);
then the detectives attempted (in 43%) to undermine the suspects’ denials.
Leo also noted that the detectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
often appealed to the suspects’ self-interest in confessing (88%);
mentioned the importance of the suspect co-operating (37%);
offered moral justifications or psychological excuses (34%);
used praise/flattery (30%);
mentioned the detectives’ expertise (29%);
minimised the seriousness of the offence (22%);
appealed to the suspects’ conscience (22%).
13. Leo (cont’d)
Leo defined an interrogation as ‘successful’ if the suspect provided during it
some incriminating information. (Around two thirds met this definition.)
The only factors that he found to be associated with whether an
interrogation involved some such success were (i) its length and (ii) the
number of tactics used.
Significant associations between some of the tactics and the suspect
providing incriminating information were found as follows:
• identifying contradictions (91% of the interrogations in which this tactic
was used); [this tactic/skill is now being emphasised in the PEACE
approach]
• offering the suspect a moral justification or psychological excuse (91%)
• praise/flattery (91%)
• appealing to suspect’s conscience (97%).
Other outstanding studies of actual police interviews in North America
include Feld (2006) and King and Snook (2009).
14 (of 28). Views of interviewers
More recent information concerning USA police use of techniques while interviewing
suspects comes from a survey of interviewing/interrogating officers’ (Reppucci, Meyer,
& Kostelnik, 2010). The percentages of respondents who endorsed various techniques
included
•
•
•
•
•
observe body language to detect deception - 92%
observe speech patterns to detect deception - 57%
suggest what may have happened – 46%
discourage denials – 29%
false evidence - 27%. (But see Kebbell, Hurren, and Roberts (2006) who found that
telling ‘suspects’ about evidence against them that was incorrect reduced their
likelihood of confessing; also see van Bergen, Jelicic, and Merckelbach, 2008.)
For more surveys of investigating officers’ views see (for North America) Kassin, et al.
(2007); (for Finland) Hakkanen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison, and Granhag (2009); (for Australia)
Alison and Howard (2005); (for England ) Soukara, Bull, and Vrij (2002); (for India)
Alison, Sarangi, and Wright (2008); (for Hong Kong) Alison, Kebbell, and Leung (2008).
15. A human approach recommended in the USA
An experienced investigator in the USA who ‘foresaw’ (but did
not mention) the possibility that a PEACE-like approach
may be useful in the USA was Yeschke.
In the second edition of his The art of investigative
interviewing (2003) this former FBI special agent with more
than 30 years of relevant experience presented what the
second part of his book’s title refers to as A human
approach to testimonial evidence.
Yeschke stated that “Criminal investigations must be
conducted in a professional atmosphere in which no one
tampers with evidence and no one physically or
psychologically compels an innocent person to confess”
(p.7 - but no mention here of unduly compelling a guilty
person to confess).
16. Yeschke (cont’d)
Yeschke noted that “The tactics suggested in this book ….are ethical” (p.12)
and that “I consider the following behaviours to be unethical:
•
•
•
•
Using interrogation tactics instead of interviewing tactics
Treating each interviewee as though culpable …
Using coercion …
Not maintaining the interviewee’s dignity” (p.12).
Yeschke stated that “These and similar tactics have been used in the past … It
is time for a change “ (p.12).
He emphasised the importance of “actively listening” (p.21),
that “An interview is more of a marathon than a sprint” (p.22),
that “The more effective you are in collecting testimonial evidence in an
interview, the more proficient you will be as an investigator” (p.36),
and that “… interviews necessarily take place to uncover the truth …” (p.41).
17. Some of our studies
In a 2010 book chapter we concluded that our “Study 1 found
that the views of experienced interviewers/detectives in
England appeared to be in line with the new approach
(referred to as investigative interviewing) and its evolving
training program (called PEACE).
One major aim of Studies 2 and 3 was to determine if actual
police interviewing of suspects was in line with the
philosophy behind investigative interviewing. These two
studies found this to be the case to a considerable extent
(e.g., the absence of oppressive coercive tactics), which
clearly suggests that the PEACE approach can be accepted
and employed by police officers.” (Bull & Soukara, 2010).
18. Our studies (cont’d)
However, our studies also found that some
inappropriate tactics were used in a
considerable number of interviews (such as
leading questions, repeating the same
questions, positive confrontation), though
Clarke, Milne, and Bull (in revision) found
fewer leading questions used in police
interviews with suspects.
19 (of 28). Our studies (cont’d)
Our studies 3 and 4 also had the major aim of trying to determine if
interviewer use of tactics/skills bore any relationship to the suspect
confessing.
Contrary to what the limited previous research had found (for
example, Baldwin, 1993), most of the suspects who confessed did
not do so very early on. This allowed, almost for the first time,
examination of whether how the interviewer behaves does
influence confessing (as suggested by convicted persons in studies
by Holmberg & Christiansson, 2002; Kebbel & Hurren, 2006).
We found that the interviewers employed non-coercive techniques
and that the PEACE/investigative interviewing approach
nevertheless resulted in confessions.
20 (of 28). Police-researcher relationships
We concluded that “Overall, this chapter demonstrates that when a
sufficiently good relationship can be established (taking many
years), enlightened police officers/police organizations are
sometimes willing to allow comprehensive scrutiny of their
interviewing performance by psychologists.
Perhaps they had the confidence to do this because a national policy
plus a comprehensive training program (i.e. PEACE) had been in
place for several years and they therefore thought that the
interviews in their fairly large police force would be, at least, of
reasonable standard. If so, they were correct.”
Nevertheless, it is important to note what the American psychologist
DeClue said in his extensive commentary on police interviews with
suspects - “ … law enforcement officers are likely to see
psychologists as being the enemy when the law enforcement
officers have not done their jobs well” (2005, p. 351).
21 (of 28). Can the PEACE approach be recommended
In concluding our 2010 chapter we stated that “The
tactics of greatest concern to some eminent
psychologists (e.g., Gudjonsson, 2003) were very rarely
present, though some that are likely to be unreliable
(e.g., leading questions) were often used—perhaps due
to their probable high frequency in everyday life.
Thus, the new research presented in this chapter could
be taken to suggest that police organisations around
the world should actively consider adopting the PEACE
approach and associated training programs.”
22. “Yes we can” (Obama)
In the “Conclusion” chapter of their 2010 edited volume
Chris Meissner and Dan Lassiter said that “One
alternative…” to “…psychologically coercive
interrogative methods…” is “…the PEACE approach to
investigative interviewing…used in Great Britain…”
(Meissner & Lassiter, 2010, p. 229).
In the “Afterword” chapter Saul Kassin stated that
“Although more systematic research is needed, it is
clear that investigative interviewing offers a potentially
effective alternative to the classic American
interrogation” (p. 235).
23 (of 28). Research involving
experiments
In 2010 Chris Meissner and colleagues reminded us that
“The interrogation room presents a challenge to
laboratory researchers who attempt to recreate the
elements of police interrogation in a controlled
environment.” (Meissner, et al., 2010, p. 118).
From their recent laboratory based research in which
“The inquisitorial approach used was modeled after
the approach advocated in Great Britain”, they
concluded that “ The results of both studies
demonstrated a significant advantage in using
inquisitorial methods over that of accusatorial
approaches” (p. 122). (Also see Vrij, Mann, and Fisher,
2006.)
24 (of 28). PEACE in Canada?
A few months ago in Canada Snook, Eastwood, Stinson,
Tedeschini, and House (2010) - in a journal article co-authored
by three police officers and two academics - stated that
“…interviewing practices in Canada require substantive
reform” (p. 215).
They recommended adoption of
• the PEACE approach commenting that it “…is ethical and
grounded in scientific research…” (p. 215)
• “…a standardized tier-based training program for
interviewing…” (p. 224). [For accounts of such a program see
Bull and Milne (2004); Milne, Shaw, and Bull (2007).]
25 (of 28)
Snook et al. in describing the PEACE approach said that “By
obtaining an initial free narrative and using evidence-based
challenges – that is, an interviewee’s failure to respond
truthfully to evidence (e.g., DNA, CCTV recordings) that
contradicts his or her account – can illustrate guilt
regardless of whether the interviewee verbalizes that guilt.
PEACE therefore, allows the truth to be revealed without
the use of manipulative and coercive tactics and the risk of
false confessions” (p. 223).
[Hershkowitz, Horowitz, Lamb, Orbach, and Sternberg (2004) found an
association between (youhful) suspects admitting to child abuse in
interviews and their responsiveness to free recall prompts.]
26 (of 28). PEACE in our time?
Some countries have already decided to adopt the PEACE
approach. These include New Zealand, which
commissioned a world-wide review of the relevant
literature and current police practices (Schollum,2005).
In Norway in 2002 a national investigative interviewing
training course was commissioned. This ‘KREATIV’
approach/model was “heavily influenced by the British
PEACE course” (Fahsing & Rachlew, 2009, p. 42) and
the 2006 feedback from officers who were trained in
this model was very positive.
27 of 28. How/when to present evidence
In the conclusion of his in-depth, overview chapter Gudjonsson
(2006) stated that “Usually, suspects confess for a
combination of reasons, but perception of the strength of
evidence is the single most important reason. This has
important implications for investigators” (p. 143). (Also see
Moston, Stephenson, and Williamson, 1992.)
The various ways that the ‘evidence’ can be presented to
suspects in investigative interviews (i.e. that follow the PEACE
approach) is now being studied experimentally (i.e. using
good ‘scientific’ methodology).
28 (of 28). The ‘GRIMACE’ approach
Later in this conference my colleague Dr. Coral
Dando will be presenting a paper concerned
with our ongoing research on this very point.
(Also see Sellers and Kebbell, 2009; van der
Sleen, 2009.)
Our research examines the effectiveness of the
‘GRIMACE’ approach which involves Gathering
Reliable Information, then Motivating an
Account, then Challenging this Effectively.
References
Alison, L. & Howard, J. (2005). The interpersonal dynamics of police interviewing.
In L. Alison (Ed.) The forensic psychologist’s casebook. (pp. 114 – 141).
Cullompton: Willan.
Alison, L., Kebbell, M., & Leung, J. (2008). A facet analysis of police officers’ selfreported use of suspect interviewing strategies and their discomfort with
ambiguity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1072-1087.
Alison, L., Sarangi, S., & Wright, A. (2008). Human rights is not enough: the need
for demonstrating efficacy of an ethical approach to interviewing in India.
Legal & Criminological Psychology, 13, 89-106.
Boetig, B. (2005). Reducing a guilty suspect’s resistance to confessing: Applying
criminological theory to interrogation theme development. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, August, 13-20.
Bull,R., & Soukara, S. (2010). Four studies of what really happens in police
interviews. In G. D. Lassiter and C. Meissner (Eds.) Police interrogations and
false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp.
81-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bull, R., Valentine, T., & Williamson, T. (2009). Handbook of psychology of
investigative interviewing. Chichester: Wiley.
DeClue, G. (2005). Psychological consultation in cases involving interrogations
and confessions. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 313-358.
Des Lauriers-Varin, N. and St-Yves, M. (2006). An empirical investigation of
offenders’ decision to confess their crime during police interrogation. Paper
presented at the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference,
Portsmouth, July.
Fahsing. I., & Rachlew, A. (2009). Investigative interviewing in the Nordic region.
In T. Williamson., B. Milne, & S. Savage (Eds.) International developments in
investigative interviewing (pp. 39-64). Cullompton: Willan.
Feld, B. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of policy and
practice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 219-316.
Gudjonnson, G. (2006). Sex offenders and confessions: How to overcome their
resistance during questioning. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 13, 203207.
Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., Lamb, M., & Sternberg, K. (2004). Interviewing
youthful suspects in alleged sex crimes: A descriptive analysis. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 28, 423-438.
Holmberg, U., & Christianson, S-A. (2002). Murderers’ and sexual offenders’
experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny
crimes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 31-45.
Holmes, W. (2002). Criminal interrogation: A modern format for
interrogating criminal suspects based on the intellectual approach.
Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas.
Kassin, S. (2010). Deconstructing confessions – the state of the literature. In
G. D. Lassiter and C. Meissner (Eds.) Police interrogations and false
confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp.
231-238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kassin, S., Leo, R., Meissner, C., Richman, K., Colwell, L., Leach, A-Y., & La Fon,
F. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of
police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior (in press). ???????
Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Hurren, E. (2008). Sex offenders’ perceptions of the
effectiveness and fairness of humanity, dominance, and displaying an
understanding of cognitive distortions in police interviews: A vignette study.
Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 435-449.
Kebbell, M., Hurren, E., & Roberts, S. (2006). Mock-suspects’ decisions to
confess: The accuracy of eyewitness evidence is critical. Apllied Cognitive
Psychology, 20, 477-486.
King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: An
examination of the Reid model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive
strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 674-694.
Leo, R. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 86, 266 – 303.
Meissner, C., & Lassiter, G. D. (2010). What have we learned? Implications for
practice. In G. D. Lassiter and C. Meissner (Eds.) Police interrogations and false
confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 225230). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Meissner, C., Russano, M., & Narchet, F. (2010). The importance of laboratory
science for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence. In G. D.
Lassiter and C. Meissner (Eds.) Police interrogations and false confessions:
Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 111-126).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Milne, R., Shaw, G., & Bull, R. (2007). Investigative interviewing: The role of
research. In D. Carson, B. Milne., F. Pakes., K. Shalev & A. Shawyer. (Eds.)
Applying psychology to criminal justice. (pp. 65-80). Chichester:Wiley.
Moston, S., Stephenson, G., and Williamson, T. (1992). The effects of case
characteristics on suspect behaviour during police questioning. British
Journal of Criminology, 32, 23 – 40.
O’Connor, T., & Carson, W. (2005). Understanding the psychology of child
molesters: A key to getting confessions. The Police Chief, 72, December, 17.
Schollum, M. (2005). Investigative interviewing – the literature. Wellington,
NZ: Police National Headquarters.
Sellers, S., & Kebbell, M. (2009). When should evidence be disclosed in an
interview with a suspect? An experiment with mock-suspects. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6, ??? -???
Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Stinson, M., Tedescheni, J., & House, J. (2010).
Reforming investigative interviewing in Canada. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 215-229.
St-Yves, M., & Deslauriers-Varin, N. (2009). The psychology of suspects’
decision-making during interrogation. In R. Bull, T. Valentine, and T.
Williamson. (Eds.) Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing.
(pp. 1-16). Chichester: Wiley.
van Bergen, S., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach. H. (2008). Interrogation
techniques and memory distrust. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 425-434.
van der Sleen, J. (2009). A structured model for investigative interviewing of
suspects. In R. Bull, T. Valentine, and T. Williamson. (Eds.) Handbook of
psychology of investigative interviewing. (pp. 35-52). Chichester: Wiley.
Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. (2006). Information-gathering vs accusatory
interview style: Individual differences in respondents’ experiences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 589-599.
Williamson, T. (1993). From interrogation to investigative interviewing:
Strategic problems in police questioning. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 3, 89-99.
Yeschke, C. (2003). The art of investigative interviewing: A human approach
to testimonial evidence (second edition). New York: Butterworth
Heinemann.