澳大利亚的循证警务:对列队辨认和调查性访谈实践的适当性和透明度的考察

Hayley J. Cullen, Lisanne Adam, C. van Golde
{"title":"澳大利亚的循证警务:对列队辨认和调查性访谈实践的适当性和透明度的考察","authors":"Hayley J. Cullen, Lisanne Adam, C. van Golde","doi":"10.1177/14613557211004618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.","PeriodicalId":382549,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Police Science & Management","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based policing in Australia: an examination of the appropriateness and transparency of lineup identification and investigative interviewing practices\",\"authors\":\"Hayley J. Cullen, Lisanne Adam, C. van Golde\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14613557211004618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":382549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Police Science & Management\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Police Science & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211004618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Police Science & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211004618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

心理学研究在影响全球警察处理和开展刑事调查的方式方面发挥了关键作用。近年来,越来越多的心理学研究导致制定了在刑事调查的一些关键领域进行警方调查的最佳做法指南。例如,美国心理法律协会推荐的创建和执行队列的程序,以及英国开发的调查访谈的PEACE模式,都在澳大利亚产生了影响。然而,这些基于证据的建议在多大程度上被纳入澳大利亚的警务实践尚不清楚。在本文中,我们对澳大利亚各州和地区公开的警务文件进行了探索性审查,以确定最佳实践阵容识别和调查性访谈程序已被采纳到警务实践中的程度。审查显示,在指认指认过程中,许多进行指认的基本建议并未纳入公开的警务手册。对于调查性访谈,表面上看来,PEACE模式的要素在大多数澳大利亚司法管辖区都得到了实施,尽管这在警务文件中往往没有明确说明。确定的一个关键问题是警务程序缺乏(可理解的)公开透明度,因为澳大利亚的一些司法管辖区没有公开提供的警务手册或手册,以供评估其程序。因此,我们认为有必要在研究人员和执法部门之间进行更好的合作,以便在澳大利亚实现基于证据的透明警务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence-based policing in Australia: an examination of the appropriateness and transparency of lineup identification and investigative interviewing practices
Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信