Psychology and policing: From theory to impact

Abstract

Policing society is an ever-demanding task, especially in this ever-changing landscape. Psychology as a discipline embarked on its relationship with crime and justice well over 100 years ago. However, nowadays, forensic psychology has evolved from not just explaining observed behaviour, but to also suggesting practical improvements to policing and investigation through quality research (Griffiths and Milne, 2018). Indeed, partnerships involving academics and practitioners are at the heart of the evidence-based policing movement. This Special Issue concerns not simply ‘what works’ but whether there is a successful transition from theory, to research, to practice. What is the actual impact of psychology on policing and specifically investigative practice and what are the barriers and enablers to success? This Special Issue contains a collection of articles with authors from five different countries who evaluate different aspects of the criminal investigation process. The first article (Poyser and Milne) sets the scene and relates to how miscarriages of justice are primarily responsible for stimulating change in the first place. The article examines whether the police investigative process as a whole might be viewed as the nucleus around which most causes of miscarriages cluster. It is well documented that one key cause of miscarriages globally is misidentification. The second article (Pike, Havard, Harrison and Ness) canvassed views from practitioners about identification procedures and how they could be improved. The results revealed a fundamental mismatch between research and practice. At the heart of many miscarriages have been coercive interrogation practices (physical and psychological), and a closed, guilt-biased, tunnel-vision investigative mindset. The next three articles concern interrogation and investigative interviewing practices across China, the USA and Belgium. The third article in this Special Issue (Zeng, Huang and Bull) is the first to empirically examine actual Chinese police interviews with suspects and investigates the power dynamics therein. In an attempt to change the ethos and cultural tone of interactions with those suspected of crime, many countries have started to adopt/have adopted ethical investigative interviewing practices that engender an open-minded approach to information gathering. The fourth article (Kelly and Valencia) looks at the relationship of question type and interview technique usage with suspect engagement using a sample of real-life interviews from the USA. Those deemed vulnerable (e.g. children) need special consideration and safeguards within the forensic interview environment. The fifth article (Schoovaerts, Vanderhallen and McIntyre) evaluates whether legal assistance in Belgium, in real-life interviews with child suspects, provides that safety net. Investigative interviewing training regimes have played a large part in changing practice in the ethical questioning of those suspected of wrong-doing. The sixth article (Akca, Dion-Lariviere and Eastwood) is a systematic review of 30 papers that have evaluated the impact of such training on practice. What training works? Finally, the seventh article (Cullen, Adam and van Golde) conducted an exploratory review of policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best-practice identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. Taken together, these articles provide a window into how well the research base actually meets practice. Transference is the key challenge for us all. I hope that readers find these articles stimulating and that they contribute further to the development of new research which in turn impacts upon theory, practice and on justice.