Investigative interviewing

Investigative interviewing is a non-coercive method for questioning victims, witnesses and suspects of crimes.[1] Generally, investigative interviewing "involves eliciting a detailed and accurate account of an event or situation from a person to assist decision-making".[2] This interviewing technique is ethical and research based, and it stimulates safe and effective gathering of evidence. The goal of an investigative interview is to obtain accurate, reliable and actionable information. The method aims at maximising the likelihood of obtaining relevant information and minimise the risks of contaminating evidence obtained in police questioning. The method has been described as a tool for mitigating the use of torture, coercion and psychological manipulation, and for averting forced confessions and errors of justice leading to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.[3]

The term investigative interviewing was introduced in the UK in the early 1990s to represent a shift in police interviewing away from a confession oriented approach and towards evidence gathering. Traditionally, the main aim of an interrogation was to obtain a confession from a suspect in order to secure a conviction. Thus, investigative interviewing contrasts pervasive interrogations techniques aimed at making the suspect break down and confess.[4] The stark difference between these two approaches to police interviewing has led some authors to argue that the term "interrogation" should be scrapped altogether as it is inherently coercive and aimed at obtaining a confession.[5]

Much of the scientific base of investigative interviewing stems from social psychology and cognitive psychology, including studies of human memory. The method aims at mitigating the effects of inherent human fallacies and cognitive biases such as suggestibility, confirmation bias, priming and false memories. In order to conduct a successful interview the interviewer needs to be able to (1) create good rapport with the interviewee, (2) describe the purpose of the interview, (3) ask open-ended questions, and (4) be willing to explore alternative hypotheses.[6] Before any probing questions are asked, the interviewees are encouraged to give their free, uninterrupted account.

In the interim report dated 5 August 2016 to the UN General Assembly of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, the investigative interviewing method is presented at length as an example of best practice.[7]

By country

United Kingdom

The PEACE model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure and Evaluate) for police interviewing was developed in the United Kingdom in response to a number of documented forced confessions and associated wrongful convictions in the 1980’s and 90’s. Most notable were the cases associated with the conflict (the Troubles) in Northern Ireland, and terrorism, such as the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four-cases.

Norway

Investigative interviewing was adapted by the Norwegian police in 2001.[8] The acronym used for the training programme for the Norwegian police is KREATIV, and is composed of phrases reflecting the values and principles the method is based upon. Professor Ray Bull and DCI David Murthwaite (Merseyside Police) were brought from the UK to Norway to help train the trainers and initiate the programme. A module on how and when evidence should be disclosed during interviews with suspects was included, distinguishing it from the PEACE method.

New Zealand

The New Zealand Police published a practical tool and a compilation of literature on investigative interviewing in 2005[9] and underwent reforms to investigative interviewing both in policy and practice from 2007.[10]

References
  1. Milne, Rebecca and Rull, Ray (1999). Investigative Interviewing. Psychology and Practice. Chichester UK: Wiley.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. "Centre for Investigative Interviewing". This definition has been used by the Centre for Investigative Interviewing, Australia. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  3. Rachlew, Asbjørn. "From interrogating to interviewing suspects of terror: Towards a new mindset". 14th March 2017. Penal Reform International.
  4. Gudjonsson, Gisli H. (2007). Investigative interviewing. Handbook of criminal investigation. Routledge. pp. 466–492. ISBN 9781843921882.
  5. Griffiths, Andy, and Asbjørn Rachlew (2018). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: The application of psychology. In The Psychology of Criminal Investigation. Routledge. pp. 154–178.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Powell, Martine B., Ron P. Fisher, and Rebecca Wright (2005). Investigative Interviewing in Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. The Guilford Press. pp. 11–42.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. Méndez, Juan E. "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Interim report to the UN General Assembly. 5 August 2016". digitallibrary.un.org. UN. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  8. Fahsing, I. A., & Rachlew, A. (2013). Investigative interviewing in the Nordic region. In International developments in investigative interviewing. Willan. pp. 65–91.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. Schollum, Mary (2005). "Investigative interviewing: The literature. Wellington, New Zealand" (PDF). Office of the Commissioner of Police. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  10. Westera, Nina J., Rachel Zajac, Deirdre A. Brown (2017). Witness interviewing practices in New Zealand. In International Developments and Practices in Investigative Interviewing and Interrogation. Volume 1: Victims and witnesses. London: Routledge. pp. 123–134.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.