Lecture 3: Police Procedures

Question 1

What is a standard police interview?

Answer 1

• Ask witnesses to describe, in their own words, what happened
  
  • Who, what, when, where, why

Question 2

Explain the findings of the McLean (1995) study on police interviews and transcripts.

Answer 2

Randomly selected 16 tape recording w/ transcriptions of police interviews; found some interesting data:

• 1) 50% of the questions were leading
  
  • 19% of the Qs only allowed yes/no answers
• 2) 50-50 talking time between officer and witness
  
  • Problem: police are an authority figure, meaning if they were talking 50% of the time, they were heavily controlling the interview
• 3) Obstructive style; police constantly interrupted
  
  • Could unconsciously cue to you that you’re wrong/saying something irrelevant when an authority figure interrupts you
  • At the least, it disrupts your recall
• 4) Written report highly edited—omission of highly relevant info (on average per tape 14 relevant facts were excluded) + inclusions of contradictory facts (but only 4 across all tapes)
• 5) All 16 transcriptions were signed as true by the witness

Question 3

What is the cognitive interview (enhanced)?

Answer 3

• Based on principles of memory storage and retrieval
  
  • Depends on cooperation of witness

Employs 4 retrieval mnemonics designed to improve recall (5 w/ enhanced):

• 1) Rapport building (what distinguishes enhanced from regular)
• 2) Guided imagery—before answering questions, try to place yourself back into the scenario, relive the experience
  
  • Using context + state-dependent memory cues
• 3) Temporal order—recall events in a different temporal order
  
  • False memories have the tendency to become story-like; by telling the event forwards and backwards, we hope to start omitting things that aren’t true
• 4) Report any related matter—”tell us anything else that you remember, even if you don’t think that it’s relevant”
• 5) Recall using different perspectives—can be good, but only if done properly
  
  • High probability of someone filling in their memory w/ things that are plausible/familiar (can lead to creating false memories)

Question 4

Compared to the standard interview, what effects should the cognitive interviews (enhanced) produce?

Answer 4

• 1) Be 20-30/70-80 talking time between interviewer and witness
• 2) Be flexible
• 3) Have no interruptions
• 4) Use open-ended questions
• Empirical evidence shows that CI(E) reveals 35% more correct info than standard interviews, w/o increasing the rate of recall for false info

Question 5

What are 7 ways to reduce misidentification in police lineups?

Answer 5

1. Blind lineup administrators
2. Bias reducing instructions
3. Unbiased lineups
4. Witness confidence ratings
5. Video recording
6. Sequential lineups
7. Expert testimony

Question 6

How can double blind lineup procedures reduce misidentification?

Answer 6

• Blind lineup administrators—i.e. unaware of who the suspect is

When interviewers know who the suspect is, they can inadvertently/explicitly cue witnesses

• e.g. “Take your time” to tentative description—might be the nice thing to say, but the witness might interpret it differently
• Subtle unconscious cues (e.g. coughing, voice inflection)
• Confirmation bias—witness is looking to see if they’re correct as well, so police shouldn’t say anything even after they’ve made a decision
• Reinforcement can raise witness confidence levels (witness confidence trumps accuracy)

Question 7

How can bias-reducing instructions to eyewitnesses reduce misidentification?

Answer 7

• Mainly: telling them the true criminal might not actually be in the lineup/photo spread
• Also tell them that the person administering the lineup/photo spread doesn’t know who it is → can’t look to others for confirmation

Question 8

How can unbiased lineups reduce misidentification?

Answer 8

Unbiased lineups—everyone in the lineup must match the description of the suspect so the perpetrator doesn’t stand out

• fillers: the alternative suspects in the lineup/photo spread
• Description-matched method: choosing fillers based on the witness’s description of the suspect
  
  • Better b/c it allows for more variability in appearance
• All pictures should be similar—i.e. one shouldn’t be in color, someone shouldn’t be smiling, same size
• Reduce source misattribution (e.g. recognizing a face you saw in another context) + unconscious transference (a kind of source misattribution; taking a familiar face you saw in one context and applying it to a different context)

Question 9

How does taking witness confidence ratings and using video recording influence misidentification?

Answer 9

• Confidence ratings: how confident the witness is that the person identified is the right person
  
  • This statement must be taken immediately after the culprit is identified and before any feedback is given to the witness
  • Talking to others or having time pass can influence the confidence ratings
• Video recording allows judges + jury to view the identification process
  
  • Videotaped lineup or a written statement (e.g. how confident on a scale of 1-7?)
  • Way for lawyers to discredit a witness, if needed

Question 10

How can sequential lineups reduce misidentification?

Answer 10

• Sequential lineups: an eyewitness sees one person (or photograph) at a time, decides whether or not that person was the perpetrator, and then sees the next person
  
  • vs. simultaneous lineups: several people standing side by side—eyewitnesses tend to rely on relative judgments to compare the suspects to their mental image
• absolute judgment: witness makes the identification on the basis of a match between the lineup member and the witness’s memory of the perpetrator
  
  • Produces better overall accuracy; witnesses tend to be more conservative w/ their decisions
• relative judgment: the witness engages in a comparative process and selects the member who most resembles the perpetrator

Question 11

How can expert testimony reduce misidentification?

Answer 11

• Expert testimony—resistance to psychologist testimonies in Canada; not seen as delivering info beyond that of common sense/experience
• But studies show that expert testimonies do make jurors more sensitive to potential biases + the average person doesn’t know that much about eyewitnesses in comparison to what experts can provide

Question 12

What are blank lineups and what are the problems with them?

Answer 12

• Was the original solution to simultaneous lineups (before sequential), but doesn’t really work
• First line up: suspect not in it—they’re not supposed to pick anyone, but they probably will anyways
• Second line up: actual suspect is in it—witnesses pretty good at picking the correct suspect
• Removes relative decisions, but having them make a guess the first time influences how a jury + lawyers view their decision the 2nd time (how do we know it wasn’t a guess?)

Question 13

What is a cold mugshot search and how is it used?

Answer 13

Cold mugshot search: giving the witness a book of mugshots of convicted criminals and getting them to look through until they can identify someone

• Relative judgement effects, you know they’re a criminal anyways, you feel compelled to pick one (even if they’re not in the array)
• If a suspect is in a lineup, their lawyer is supposed to be there—you can’t get the lawyer for all of these people

Question 14

What is the walkthrough procedure and what are the problems with it?

Answer 14

• Also called the “Oklahoma lineup”—taking the witness to somewhere the police think the suspect is in
• Same problem w/ biased lineups: witness already has an expectation the suspect will be there + use relative comparisons

Question 15

How and what composite sketch softwares are used?

Answer 15

• Identi-Kit: describing the suspect’s face + selecting it in a program, which will add a sketched version of facial features onto a face template
• Photo-Fit: does the same thing using actual photos
• FACES + Photoshop (often used to add color): does the same thing w/ computer-generated faces

Question 16

When are interrogations used?

Answer 16

• Suspects aren’t usually interrogated right away—many suspects are interviewed until they get a few convincing suspects + interrogate them
• 80% of criminal cases solved by confession
  
  • Suspects often told that if they don’t confess + go to trial, they’ll get a heavier/stricter sentence
  • What they aren’t told is that if they go to trial and there’s no good evidence against you, you’ll get 0 years

Question 17

What is the impact of confessions on trials?

Answer 17

• “An admission of guilt is the most damaging evidence that can be presented at a defendant’s trial” (R. Hodgson, S.C.C.)
• With eyewitness testimony coming in 2nd

Question 18

What is the fundamental attribution error and how does it relate to confessions?

Answer 18

• fundamental attribution error: the tendency to attribute other people’s behaviour to dispositional causes (traits, personality) and to dismiss the situational pressures acting on the person
  
  • → “in the case of confession evidence, we tend to discount the pressures of the interrogation process as a cause of a suspect’s confession”
• Most of us assume that people wouldn’t confess to a crime b/c we wouldn’t confess to a crime under normal circumstances
• So if someone confesses and recants, people assume it’s b/c you’re guilty

Question 19

What factors would render a confession inadmissible in a trial, and what are 6 criteria used to judge this?

Answer 19

• In Canada, a confession must be 1) backed up by some other form of evidence
  
  • 2) R. v. Oickle (2000) – “a confession will not be admissible if it is made under circumstances that raise a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness”

Confessions are excluded if they are elicited by:

• Brute force
• Prolonged isolation
  
  • But how do you define prolonged isolation?
• Deprivation of food or sleep
  
  • Difference between depriving them of food before/after they already ate—again, what counts?
• Threats of harm or punishment (even hypothetical)
• Promises of immunity or leniency
  
  • The Crown/prosecution can do this b/c they actually have the power to control this, but the police don’t
• Not notifying suspect of their constitutional rights (s. 10, C.C.R.F.)

Question 20

What is investigator bias and what are the impacts of it?

Answer 20

• investigator bias: Bias that can result when police officers enter an interrogation setting already believing that the suspect is guilty
• Guilty expectations lead to:
  
  • More suspects judged to be guilty,
  • More pressure exerted on innocent subjects,
  • Innocent subjects were seen as much more defensive (Kassin et al., 2003),
• Seem to confirmation the guilt
• All examples of confirmation bias

Question 21

What is the PEACE Model of interrogations?

Answer 21

• NA often uses the Reid Technique, vs. England which uses the PEACE model
• Inquisitorial vs. accusatorial—conversation management and information gathering
• Videotaping of interrogations
• Essentially the Cognitive Interview (Enhanced)

Planning and preparation—Plan the interview + involve prosecution evidence

• Have enough evidence to call a suspect in but aren’t going to tell them what evidence you have
• Let suspect talk for 70-80% of the time + ask some Qs related to the evidence
• Try to gather info about things that aren’t clear from the witness testimony
  
  • Want to gather points that prove the offence + negate defenses
• But should also gather info about alibis

Engage and explain (essentially rapport building)—Interview preamble

• Engage: establish rapport with suspect and introduce circumstance
• Explain: outline the reasons for the interview, read suspect their rights

Account—Interviewee’s recollection of events

• Allow the suspect to give his or her version without interruption by the officer
• Problem w/ this? It’s not actually a problem
  
  • We want them to lie/contradict themselves, etc.
  • We’ll be able to tell by comparing to our existing evidence
  • Also, usually only guilty people lie

Closure—To maintain interviewer-interviewee relationship

• Thanks, clarify understanding, questions

Evaluation—Evaluate interview

• Make sures objective were met
• If needed, create new interview based on evaluation
• Use to improve technique for next time

Question 22

What are 4 other interrogation techniques often used?

Answer 22

1. Good Cop/Bad Cop—often not actually 2 different cops but 1 person, using a mixture of the soft sell vs. scare tactics
2. Minimization techniques (soft sell)—false sense of security; e.g. sympathy, excuses
3. Maximization techniques (scare tactics)—intimidation; e.g. exaggerate seriousness, lie about evidence
4. Rapport building—flattery, offer a drink, be your friend, show respect
   
   • Not like the PEACE technique to make you comfortable, but trying to suck up to the person

Question 23

How is the environment manipulated for an interrogation?

Answer 23

• Sound proof and visually isolated to promote a low internal locus of control and the feeling of withdrawn isolation
• Bare, no ornamentation, two chairs and a desk
• No outside communication
• Sit close in armless straight-backed chairs at equal eye level

Question 24

What are the 3 steps in the Reid Model of interrogations?

Answer 24

Step 1) Gather evidence related to crime and interview witnesses and victims

• Factual analysis: Eliminate improbable suspects + develop possible suspects or leads
• Increase confidence in identifying truthful or guilty suspects through the interview process
• Identify proper interrogation strategies

Step 2) Conduct a non-accusatorial interview of the suspect (evidence of deception)

• Behaviour analysis interview: witnesses, victims, and suspect
• Behaviour provoking—e.g. see how they respond to God, talking about their mother, etc.
  
  • Often used later on in the soft sell vs. scare tactic (“did you do this b/c you made a mistake or b/c you’re a terrible person + want to go to hell?”)

Step 3) Conduct an accusatorial interrogation of the suspect (9-step procedure, this stage is the actual Reid Technique)

• Based on 4 main concepts: 1) loss of control, 2) active persuasion by moral justification, 3) discourages denials, 4) progresses towards an admission of guilt
• May use evidence ploys to aid w/ this—e.g. lying about witnesses/evidence being present, offering rewards for confession

Question 25

What are some problems with the Reid Model?

Answer 25

• Detecting deception is extremely difficult and often inaccurate
• Investigator bias – confirmation bias
• False confessions

Question 26

What is an instrumental-coerced (or coerced-compliant) false confession?

Answer 26

• instrumental-coerced false confessions: when, as a result of a long or intense interrogation, suspects confess to crimes they know they did not commit
• Most common type of false confession; usually believe confessing will result in a more lenient sentence/getting out of the situation + they’ll be able to “straighten everything out later”

Question 27

What is an instrumental-voluntary false confession?

Answer 27

• instrumental-voluntary false confessions: when suspects knowingly implicate themselves in crimes they did not commit in an effort to achieve some goal
• e.g. Protect someone else, gain fame, etc.
• Often found amongst gangs or sometimes even to form an alibi for committing an even worse crime

Question 28

What is an authentic-coerced (or coerced-internalized) false confession?

Answer 28

• authentic-coerced false confession: when, as a product of a long or intense interrogation, suspects become convinced—at least temporarily—that they may have actually committed the crime; usually from creation of false memories
• Some don’t gain false memories but instead believe they committed the crime w/ no memory of doing so

Question 29

Who is susceptible to making a coerced-internalized false confession?

Answer 29

Different factors influencing who’s susceptible to falling for this:

• 1) History of substance abuse or interference with brain function
  
  • Usually demonstrate lack of details about the crime
• 2) Inability to detect discrepancies between what was observed and what was suggested
• 3) Mental state factors: severe anxiety, confusion and shock, feelings of guilt (survivor’s guilt)
• 4) Compliance—The Gudjonsson Compliance Scale; 2 dimensions of compliance:
  
  • 1) Eagerness to please others
  • 2) Desire to avoid conflict and confrontation
  • Some evidence suggests you can reliably differentiate between “resisters” and “false confessors”

Question 30

Explain the study behind the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale.

Answer 30

• Ps become familiar w/ short story → then answer 20 questions, 15 misleading (i.e. they’re incorrect)
  
  • e.g. In the story a guy turns left but the person asks “did the guy turn right?”
• Yield – susceptibility to give in to leading questions
• Shift – the tendency to alter answers when put under pressure by an interviewer
• Some people would just yield (say yes) b/c they remember turning but become unsure of the direction
• See how many answers you yield to, then yell at you then see how many you change (shift)
  
  • e.g. If you say, “I’m pretty sure the guy turned left,” they then put pressure on you to see if you shift
• As anxiety increases + IQ decreases – suggestibility increases

Question 31

Explain the Kassin & Sukel (1997) study on the impact of false confessions.

Answer 31

• Ps read 1/3 versions of a trial + come up w/ a verdict
• The case consisted of an introduced confession w/ 4 conditions + a control:
  
  • 1) Elicited under low or high pressure interrogation
  • 2) Ruled admissible or inadmissible by a judge
  • 3) Control group with no confession
• Hypothetical-ideal results:
  
  • Low pressure, admissible: 65% guilty
  • Low pressure, not admissible + high pressure admissible/not admissible: 20%
  • Control group: 20% guilty
• High pressure, admissible is what we’re interested in (should theoretically be the same guilty rate as the control group)
• When asked about the case, jurors saw the high pressure confessions as:
  
  • Less voluntary
  • Correctly recalled the judge’s ruling
  • And reported it had less influence on their decisions
• But what did their results show?
  
  • Low pressure, admissible: 65%
  • Low pressure, inadmissible: 50%
  • High pressure, admissible: 50%
  • High pressure, inadmissible: 45%
• Result: Confession increased the guilty rates
  
  • Even when it was coerced
  • Even when it was stricken from the record
  • Even when jurors said it had to influence

Question 32

How well are the rights of suspects understood?

Answer 32

• Many studies involving university students demonstrate that a majority of people don’t understand more than a quarter of the info when police delivery suspect rights
  
  • It doesn’t improve dramatically even when their rights are written down
• It’s worrying that high-educated individuals have trouble understanding these rights—we can only imagine how this is further impaired in a stressful setting (actual arrest)
• Studies show that explaining these rights dramatically increases comprehension (vs. both giving instructions or simply listing all the rights)
• Despite their low understanding, many studies also show that individuals are very confident

Question 33

Should interrogators be allowed to lie?

Answer 33

• “Police in Canada and the United States are legally permitted to use false evidence ploys to induce a suspect to confess”
• But there are 2 primary concerns:
  
  • (1) “may undermine public confidence in the police and reduce the willingness of citizens to cooperate with law enforcement”
  • (2) Removing inhibitions to lie during interrogation may lead to lying in a courtroom as well, if it means securing a conviction

Question 34

What are 3 benefits of and 3 problems with recording police interrogations?

Answer 34

Benefits:

• “(1) It provides a means by which courts can monitor interrogation practices and thereby enforce safeguards are being followed.
• (2) It deters the police from employing interrogation methods likely to lead to untrustworthy confessions.
• (3) It enables courts to make more informed judgments about whether interrogation practices were likely to lead to an untrustworthy confession”

Concerns:

• (1) psychological impact on the viewers
• (2) the clips shown are highly selective + not necessarily representative of the entire interrogation process
• (3) potential bias of camera angle; the equal-focus camera perspective showing both the suspect and the interrogator best enables jurors to assess the voluntariness of the confession and the coerciveness of the interrogation