Recognition of previous eyewitness testimony from an altered interrogation protocol: Potential effects of distortions

Abstract

The effect of protocol presentation on witnesses’ tendency to point out errors in a transcribed version of their verbal testimony was examined in two experiments. Participants were shown a film depicting a robbery and were subsequently questioned. In the process of typing out the testimony, there were six distortions entered into the protocol. When participants were asked to check the content for approval, they either listened to the experimenter reading the protocol out aloud, or read it on their own. The results showed that witnesses who had listened to the content being read to them pointed out significantly fewer distortions, and suggest that protocol presentation may have important implications for the justice system.     

Police interrogation

Abstract

We describe a study of more than 1000 interrogations by Metropolitan Police Officers. Obtaining a confession is found to be the paramount reason for interviewing a suspect. However, few suspects who did not initially confess changed their minds during the interview. 42% of suspects admitted their guilt—about the same number as obtained before tape recording of interviews was introduced. Strength of evidence and legal advice were the principal factors associated with confessing. The confession rate also varied according to which police station hosted the “interview”. An “accusatorial” style of questioning was associated with the possession of strong evidence against the suspect.     

职务犯罪审讯中的博弈运用

博弈的英文是game,game的意义不限于汉语中的游戏.在英语中,game即是人们遵循一定规则下的活动,进行游戏的人的目的是使自己"赢".从理论角度讲,博弈论是研究理性的行动者(agents)相互作用的形式理论.     

Police interrogation practice in Slovenia

Interrogation techniques are well explored, but in Slovenia it has remained unknown what interrogation techniques are used and what the basic characteristics of suspect interrogations are. The Slovenian interrogation manual proposes some coercive interrogation techniques and neglects their weaknesses. The aim of the current study was to examine Slovenian police officers’ beliefs as to the basic characteristics of their interrogations and whether techniques proposed by the manual are used in practice to begin to provide some insight into what actually happens in such interrogations. A survey instrument was used to obtain self-report data from a sample of criminal investigators. From 86 completed questionnaires it was found that a typical interrogation of a suspect lasts around 90 minutes and is not recorded. Interviewers typically use three interrogation techniques namely (i) conducting interrogations in isolation; (ii) identifying contradictions in the suspect's story; and (iii) confronting the suspect with evidence. Findings suggest that some coercive interrogation techniques are used in practice (e.g. offering moral justifications, alluding to have evidence of guilt, good cop/bad cop routine, and minimization). The study is the first insight into the practices of Slovenian investigators when questioning suspects. Differences among general, white-collar and organized crime investigators are also discussed.     

贞查讯问与非法证据

侦查讯问犯罪嫌疑人的目的就是要获取口供。讯问权力的行使,在一定程度上使犯罪嫌疑人的权利相对遭到侵害,刑讯逼供等侵权行为便不断发生,形成非法证据。因此,加强对侦查讯问中非法证据形成途径的研究,并据此提出排除非法证据的措施,将有助于遏制侦查讯问中非法证据的形成。     

Written records of police interrogation: differential registration as determinant of statement credibility and interrogation quality

Abstract

The backbone of Dutch criminal procedure is the case file including a large number of written records. In Dutch courts the focus is primarily on evaluation of written records. The written record of police interrogation is a mediated account of the interrogation itself. In this study we explore how individual differences in the production of written records by police officers affect the jurists' evaluation of the suspect's story and of the quality of the interrogation itself. In the first study, five police officers produced written records of one and the same interrogation on video of a denying suspect. In the second study, three of those written records are evaluated by jurists. They are asked to determine story acceptability of the suspect and procedural fairness of the interrogation. Findings show that a short and simple interrogation of a suspect results in written records that are quite different (Study I). It is further shown that these differences affect the jurists' evaluation of some of the core issues addressed in a criminal process (Study II). Implications of these findings are discussed as well as a number of possible ways to improve the current state of affairs.     

Effects of personality,interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm

Purpose. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effects of personality variables, interrogation techniques and the plausibility level of an alleged transgression on the experimental elicitation of false confessions. Methods. Two hundred and nineteen undergraduate students assessed on measures of compliance, self‐esteem, locus of control and interrogative suggestibility participated in the Kassin and Kiechel (1996) paradigm. Experimental manipulations included minimization and maximization interrogation techniques and high and low plausibility of the alleged typing mistake to examine rates of false confession and internalization. Results. The overall false confession and internalization rates across all conditions were 43 and 10%, respectively. An increased likelihood of false confession behaviour was associated with higher Shift scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, the use of minimization interrogation techniques and an increase in the plausibility of the allegation. Females were more likely to falsely confess than males in the high plausibility condition, whereas Caucasian and Asian participants were equally likely to falsely confess. Personality variables, such as compliance, most influenced the behaviour of males and Asians. Conclusions. The results of this study offer insight into false confession behaviour, suggesting that individuals who have a tendency to change their responses in the face of negative feedback may be more prone to false confession behaviour. The findings also serve to highlight the dangers of using minimization interrogation techniques and elucidate the limited generalizability of the paradigm to situations in which the alleged transgression is less plausible.     

The evolution of criminal interrogation rules in China

This paper presents a historical analysis of Chinese legal theories and the evolution of criminal interrogation rules from the pre-Han to the reform era. A fuller understanding of the evolution of rules is doubtless relevant to the present day’s controversy in China’s legal reforms surrounding the right to remain silent during interrogation and the privilege against self-incrimination. The historical analysis reveals that the imperial social context which once morally legitimized judicial torture in Chinese criminal justice is very much alive even today. For future legal reforms in China, there are barriers in the current social context, which seem to be unconducive for the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination. But, traditional native resources are also available to legal reformers to ensure better protection of the rights of the suspect subject to police interrogation, and to eliminate police-coerced confessions.     

法庭科学鉴定人出庭接受质证的对策

法庭科学鉴定属于证据的一种 ,为刑事、民事案件的审理提供线索 ,为法庭诉讼提供科学依据。只有通过鉴定人出庭接受询问、质证 ,经法庭调查或庭审质证确认属实的法庭科学鉴定 ,才能作为定案的依据 ,以确保法庭科学鉴定的公正、科学、准确和实事求是。 1997年 1月 1日实施的《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》(简称新《刑诉法》)和 1991年 4月 9日实施的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(简称新《民诉法》)均要求鉴定人出庭接受质证。因此 ,出庭接受质证已经成为法庭科学鉴定人必须面对的现实。为了确保法庭科学鉴定的真实、科学、有效 ,避免和减少由…     

法庭科学鉴定人出庭接受质证的对策

法庭科学鉴定属于证据的一种,为刑事、民事案件的审理提供线索,为法庭诉讼提供科学依据.只有通过鉴定人出庭接受询问、质证,经法庭调查或庭审质证确认属实的法庭科学鉴定 ,才能作为定案的依据,以确保法庭科学鉴定的公正、科学、准确和实事求是.1997年1月1 日实施的<中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法>(简称新<刑诉法>)和1991年4月9日实施的<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>(简称新<民诉法>)均要求鉴定人出庭接受质证.因此,出庭接受质证已经成为法庭科学鉴定人必须面对的现实.为了确保法庭科学鉴定的真实、科学、有效,避免和减少由此引发的冤假错案,真正体现司法公正宗旨,同时正确运用语言逻辑学和巧妙的答辩技术,避免因人为因素造成不良的答辩后果.根据作者的实际工作经验与体会撰写此文,供从事法庭科学鉴定的科技工作者参考借鉴.     

法官可以变更指控罪名:德国的启示

控审分离原则和被告人的防御权是反对法官变更指控罪名的两个主要理由,但德国的经验告诉我们,法官变更指控罪名并不必然违反控审分离原则和侵犯被告人的防御权,我国在对该问题处理上的缺陷主要是没有保障被告人的防御权,因此必须确保法官在变更指控罪名时保障被告人的防御权。     

Floating Charge--浮动抵押

“FloatingCharge”来源于英美法系 ,它将担保设立在公司的全部财产之上 (该担保甚至可及于公司未来之财产 ) ,在结晶前公司对财产享有处分权。通过介绍FloatingCharge的创立和发展变化 ,从设定和实施两个方面详细考察了该制度的具体内涵。最后通过和大陆法系财团抵押制度的对比 ,提出应在我国引进浮动抵押 ,完善企业担保制度。     

论我国侦查讯问阶段律师在场制度的构建

律师在场权源于律师辩护权,是刑事辩护权的重要组成部分,辩护权是犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在刑事诉讼中所享有的一项基本权利,体现了刑事诉讼法中人权保障的理念。现代各国刑事诉讼法或判例都承认了律师在场权的正当性,在我国,如何构建侦查讯问程序律师在场制度,具体应针对律师在场权的内容、适用范围、行使程序、保障措施等一整套规则进行探讨和分析。     

Accusatorial and information-gathering interview and interrogation methods: a multi-country comparison

Suspect interviewing and interrogation practices have been studied in many different countries, including those in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. These studies have produced useful and interesting findings, while also leaving an opening for future inquiry. Specifically, previous research has noted that we might expect interrogation and interviewing practices to vary among different countries or regions, due to distinct approaches to suspect questioning. However, to our knowledge, few previous studies have examined the comparative use of tactics, techniques, and procedures employed to elicit confessions and information from criminal suspects across multiple countries. In the present study, using a consistent survey, we contrasted the interviewing and interrogation practices of 185 practitioners from America, Canada, and Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. In large part, we found that American and Canadian interrogators were similar to one another, and conformed to an accusatorial approach (in both deception detection and questioning techniques). In contrast, interviewers from Europe, Australia, and New Zealand conformed more to an information-gathering approach.     

Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: comparing expert and lay opinions

ABSTRACT

When confessions are entered into evidence in criminal courts, issues of coercion and voluntariness are important and often contested matters. Occasionally, defense attorneys proffer expert witnesses to testify about the coercive pressures of an interrogation and the risk of a false confession. Such testimony is often ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it does not inform the jury beyond its common knowledge. In our effort to test this judicial assumption about common knowledge, we surveyed jury-eligible laypeople (n?=?67) and social scientists specializing in interrogation and confessions (n?=?54) regarding their opinions about the coerciveness of prohibited interrogation tactics, maximization techniques, minimization techniques, and suspect risk factors and compared their ratings with a set of independent t tests. Laypeople gave lower ratings to the coerciveness of all sets of items representing interrogation techniques, and lower ratings to the vulnerabilities associated with suspect risk factors, as compared to social science experts. The disparities between laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations demonstrate that such issues are not fully within the common knowledge of prospective jurors, and suggest the need to provide jurors with expert witness guidance when tasked with evaluating confession evidence.