Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2010). The Cognitive Interview for eyewitnesses with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1350–1360.
Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2012a). Brief report: Suggestibility, compliance and psychological traits in high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1168–1175.
Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2012b). Context reinstatement effects on eyewitness memory in autism spectrum disorder. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 330–342.
Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2014). Eyewitness testimony in autism spectrum disorder: A review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2682–2697.
Maras, K. L., Memon, A., Lambrechts, A., & Bowler, D. M. (2013). Recall of a live and personally experienced eyewitness event by adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1798–1810.
Mattison, M. L. A., Dando, C. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2015). Sketching to remember: Episodic free recall task support for child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1751–1765.
McCrory, E., Henry, L. A., & Happé , F. (2007). Eye-witness memory and suggestibility in children with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 482–489.
Mello, E. W., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness memory with the Cognitive Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 403–417.
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340–372.
Michel, M. K., Gordon, B. N., Ornstein, P. A., & Simpson, M. A. (2000). The abilities of children with mental retardation to remember personal experiences: Implications for testimony. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 453–463.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2001). Interviewing witnesses with learning disabilities for legal purposes. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 93–97.
Milne, R., Sharman, S. J., Powell, M. B., & Mead, S. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview for children with severe intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60, 18–29.
Ministry of Justice (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Author.
Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., & Mather, M. (2003). Source monitoring and suggestibility to misinformation: Adult age-related differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 107–119.
Multhaup, K. S., de Leonardis, D. M., & Johnson, M. K. (1999). Source memory and eyewitness suggestibility in older adults. Journal of General Psychology, 126, 74–84.
Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–511.
North, A. S., Russell, A. J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2008). High functioning autism spectrum disorders: An investigation of psychological vulnerabilities during interrogative interview. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19, 323–334.
Odinot, G., Memon, A., La Rooy, D., & Millen, A. (2013). Are two interviews better than one? Eyewitness memory across repeated Cognitive Interviews. PLoS One, 8, e76305.
Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Young children’s references to temporal attributes of allegedly experienced events in the course of forensic interviews. Child Development, 78, 1100–1120.
Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 733–752.
Perfect, T. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Moore, D., Andrews, B., Cleveland, V., Newcombe, S., Brown, L. (2008). How can we help witnesses to remember more? It’s an (eyes) open and shut case. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 314–324.
Perlman N. B., Ericson K. I., Esses V. M., & Isaacs B. J. (1994) The developmentally handicapped witness: Competency as a function of question format. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 171–187.
Peterson, C. (2012). Children’s autobiographical memories across the years: Forensic implications of childhood amnesia and eyewitness memory for stressful events. Developmental Review, 32, 287–306.
Pipe, M. E., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y. & Cederborg , A-C. (Eds.). (2007). Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay, and denial. Mawhwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1995). Interviewing preschoolers: Effects of nonsuggestive techniques, parental coaching, and leading questions on reports of nonexperienced events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 129–154.
Powell, M., Roberts, K., & Guadagno, B. (2007). Particularisation of child abuse offences: Common problems when questioning child witnesses. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 19, 64–74.
Quas, J. A., Thompson, W. C., & Clarke-Stewart, K. (2005). Do jurors “know” what isn’t so about child witnesses? Law and Human Behavior, 29, 425–456.
Roberts, K. P., Brubacher, S. P., Powell, M. B., & Price, H. L. (2011). Practice narratives. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy , & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp. 129–145). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1990). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 5–23.
Sas, L. D., & Cunningham, A. H. (1995). Tipping the balance to tell the secret: The public discovery of child sexual abuse. London, Ontario: London Family Court Clinic.
Saywitz, K. J., Snyder, L., & Nathanson, R. (1999). Facilitating the communicative competence of the child witness. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 58–68.
Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 203–220.
Snook, B., & Keating, K. (2011). A field study of adult witness interviewing practices in a Canadian police organization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 160–172.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (2001a). The memorandum of good practice: Theory versus application. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 669–681.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001b). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 997–1005.
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2015). Rapport-building with cooperative witnesses and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 85–99.
Valenti-Hein, D., & Schwartz, L. D. (1993). Witness competency in people with mental retardation: Implications for prosecution of sexual abuse. Sexuality and Disability, 11, 287–294.
Vig, S., & Kaminer, R. (2002). Maltreatment and developmental disabilities in children. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 371–386.
Walker, A. G. (1999) Handbook on questioning children: A linguistic perspective (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.
Warren, A. R., Woodall, C. E., Hunt, J. S., & Perry, N. W. (1996). “It sounds good in theory, but…”: Do investigative interviewers follow guidelines based on memory research? Child Maltreatment, 1, 231–245.
Waterman, A. H., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (2004). Indicating when you do not know the answer: The effect of question format and interviewer knowledge on children’s “don’t know” responses. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 335–348.
Westcott, H. (1991). The abuse of disabled children: A review of the literature. Child: Care, Health and Development, 17, 243–258.
Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E.
(2007). Interviewing cognitively impaired older adults: How useful is a Cognitive Interview? Memory, 15, 17–33.
Yarmey, A. D. (1984). Age as a factor in eyewitness memory. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eye-witness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 142–154). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Yarmey, A.D., & Kent, J. (1980). Eyewitness identification by elderly and young adults. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 359–371.
8 Interviewing Suspects
ERIK MAC GIOLLA AND PÄR ANDERS GRANHAG
CHAPTER OUTLINE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 WHAT OFFICERS ARE ADVISED TO DO
8.3 WHAT OFFICERS DO
8.4 WHAT OFFICERS SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO 8.4.1 False Confessions
8.4.2 Rapport
8.4.3 Use of Evidence in Suspect Interviews
8.4.4 Suspect vs. Intelligence-Gathering Interviews
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
8.6 SUMMARY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Understand why a psychological analysis of suspect interviews is important in a criminal investigation
Appreciate the principal research methods used to explore different techniques and approaches used for interviewing suspects
Understand the implications of existing findings within the field of suspect interviews.
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Sooner or later, most criminal investigations result in one or several suspects being interviewed. The outcome of the suspect interview is central to any investigation. The objectives set by the investigators before interviewing a suspect may be more or less formalized, and they may vary. The overall objective should be to obtain reliable information; information that will push the investigation in the right direction. The objective should not be to get a confession. As will be discussed in this chapter, if the interview is “confession-driven” there is a risk that the confession obtained is false. Those who believe that the risk of obtaining a false confession is extremely slim, may think differently after taking a minute to study the so-called Innocence Project, a project that has been running in the United States since 1992 (www.innocenceproject.org). Today more than 330 persons have been exonerated by DNA evidence (including 18 serving time on death row), persons who were wrongfully convicted. Almost one third of these innocent individuals had confessed to the crime that they were accused of, a crime they never committed.
This chapter will put the searchlight on some of the reasons that may explain this disturbing number. The first two parts of the chapter are descriptive in nature – discussing what police officers are told to do with respect to interviewing suspects, and what they actually do. The latter part of the chapter is prescriptive and offers a few words on what police officers should do and what they should not do with respect to suspect interviewing. Any overview on suspect interviews needs to consult many different sources of information. Hence, for our chapter we draw on (1) recommendations found in police manuals, (2) the outcome of surveys (completed by police officers, and in some cases, suspects), (3) archival and case-studies (to really get a look inside the interrogation room), and (4) the outcome of experiments carried out in the forensic psychologist’s laboratory.
8.2 WHAT OFFICERS ARE ADVISED TO DO
The accepted practice for suspect interviewing procedures varies dramatically from country to country and advice on how to interview can come in many different forms. At a macro-level, UN directives such as the Convention Against Torture (1984), put boundaries on what can and cannot be carried out within the interrogation room. At a micro-level, more specific interview manuals and a country’s particular legislation, such as the right to silence in the US (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966), provide more precise instructions for interviewers. A broad distinction is typically made between accusatorial interviewing approaches practiced in the United States and information gathering approaches advocated in the UK (Gudjonsson, 2003; Meissner et al. 2014).
Accusatorial interview practices are marked by an asymmetric power relationship between the interviewer and the suspect, where the interviewer is in control (Roberts, 2012). Other typical indicators of accusatorial methods are the use of psychological manipulation, the use of confirmatory questions and primarily seeking to elicit a confession from the suspect (Meissner et al., 2014). The specific technique that has had most influence on this form of interviewing is known as the Reid technique (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013). Developed through the 1940s and 1950s (Inbau, 1948; Inbau & Reid, 1953), the Reid interview manual – Criminal Interrogation and Confessions – is now in its fifth edition (Inbau, Reid, & Buckley, 2011). The Reid technique is generally regarded as the single most influential police interview manual (Gudjonsson, 2003).
The technique focusses on the complementary processes of breaking down a suspect’s resistance to denial and increasing a suspect’s desire to confess (Gudjonsson, 2003). This is achieved through nine steps:
Step 1: Direct, positive confrontation. A police interviewer confronts the suspect with evidence that clearly indicates the guilt of the suspect. The interviewer follows this by convincing the suspect of the benefit of telling the truth.
Step 2: Theme development. During this phase, the interviewer gains the trust of the suspect through displays of sympathy and understanding. In addition, the interviewer minimizes the seriousness of the offense. The goal is not to minimize the suspect’s involvement, but rather the moral implications of the crime. This can be achieved, for instance by providing contextual excuses for the behavior.
Step 3: Handling denials. Most suspects are expected to deny their guilt. The Reid technique emphasizes the importance of handling denials. Specifically, it is argued that a suspect who is given the opportunity to repeatedly deny involvement in a crime can gain a psychological advantage over the interviewer. It is therefore important to limit such repeated denials. In its crudest form, this is achieved by simply interrupting the suspect during denials.
Step 4: Overcoming objections. Objections occur when a suspect moves on from simply denying their involvement to offering reasons why he or she could not have committed the crime. The interviewer overcomes these by maintaining the guilt of the suspect.
Step 5: Procurement and retention of the suspect’s attention. When the suspect realizes his or her objections are ineffective they will show signs of withdrawal from active participation in the interview. When this occurs it is important for the interviewer to regain the suspect’s attention, for instance by moving physically closer to the suspect and calling them by their first name.
Step 6: Handling the suspect’s passive mood. The aim of step six is to continue breaking down the suspect’s resistance by showing signs of understanding and sympathy, and by appealing to the suspect’s decency. The aim is to encourage the suspect to tell the truth, with the ultimate aim of a confession.
Step 7: Presenting an alternative question. For this step the interviewer presents the suspect with two alternatives of their involvement in the crime. Both alternatives are highly incriminating; however, one allows the suspect to save face more than the other. The argument is that by getting the suspect to admit to a lesser offense they will be more likely to provide a full confession.
Step 8: Having the suspect relate details of the offense. The aim of step eight is to develop the admission in step seven into a full confession.
Step 9: Converting an oral confession into a written confession. The final step is to convert the oral confession into a written confession as this is much stronger evidence in the court.
Accusatorial interview practices – such as the Reid technique – have historically dominated suspect interviewing (Roberts, 2012). Despite this dominance these methods have come under much criticism (Gudjonsson, 2003). The most important criticism concerns the increased risk of false confessions (see section 8.4.1 on false confessions). Aware of such risks, the authors in the most recent version of the Reid manual explain that the
nine-step technique should only be employed when, during a pre-interrogation interview, investigators become certain that the suspect is guilty of the crime in question. Of course, this only begs the question, how can the guilt of a suspect be known? And if it is known, then why go through the arduous nine-step procedure to elicit a confession?
A greater awareness of the risks for innocent suspects associated with accusatorial procedures has led to a paradigm shift in interviewing policy in a number of countries. The police forces of England and Wales have been at the forefront of this development since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE; Home Office, 1985). PACE was a response to a number of high profiled miscarriages of justice within the UK, where coercive interviewing practices were a significant contributing factor (e.g., the Birmingham six and Guildford Four; Gudjonsson, 2003). In brief, PACE puts a greater focus on the safeguarding of innocent suspects.
The legal framework outlined by PACE resulted in the development of a national manual for the interviewing of suspects and witnesses within England and Wales – A Guide to Interviewing produced by the police’s Central Planning and Training Unit (CPTU) in 1992. The manual ascribes to a non-confrontational information gathering approach to suspect interviewing. The primary shift has been from a confession-focused accusatorial interrogation to an information-gathering interview. In the former, the guilt of the suspect is presumed, and manipulative and coercive tactics are employed to elicit a confession. In the latter, interviewers are to suspend their judgment of guilt and solely focus on obtaining information from the suspect. Once the goal of a confession is off the table, the value of coercive and manipulative tactics is reduced. If anything they may negatively affect the quality and reliability of the information obtained.
Forensic Psychology Page 38