证人/受害者访谈:对现实世界调查人员的培训和实践的调查

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Amy Hyman Gregory, Andrea C. F. Wolfs, Nadja Schreiber Compo
{"title":"证人/受害者访谈:对现实世界调查人员的培训和实践的调查","authors":"Amy Hyman Gregory, Andrea C. F. Wolfs, Nadja Schreiber Compo","doi":"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2043312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The U.S. National Institute of Justice’s Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement makes recommendations regarding best practice witness interviewing techniques. However, relatively little is known about police training in collecting and documenting evidence from witness interviews. One hundred seventy-seven police officers from three U.S. states (CT, FL, and MA) were surveyed about witness interview training and practices, perceptions of question type, and recording/documentation of interviews. Results indicate awareness of the importance of asking open-ended questions, but training is lacking, particularly regarding question types. Many officers reported using techniques consistent with the Cognitive Interview such as rapport-building, avoiding leading questions, and taking additional steps to assist recall. Seventy-four percent reported recording interviews via notes or electronic recording devices, while 16% indicated only doing so for certain cases/situations. Fourteen percent also acknowledged not documenting their questions in notes or reports, focusing solely on witness responses. In terms of post-interview documentation, 78% acknowledged writing reports using information elicited during witness interviews. In terms of testimony, 82% reported frequently testifying about witness interview content at criminal trials. Findings suggest that although U.S. police interviewers have implemented some best practice techniques, there are still some considerable training needs as evidenced by self-reported practices.","PeriodicalId":47845,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Crime & Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Witness/victim interviewing: a survey of real-world investigators’ training and practices\",\"authors\":\"Amy Hyman Gregory, Andrea C. F. Wolfs, Nadja Schreiber Compo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1068316X.2022.2043312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The U.S. National Institute of Justice’s Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement makes recommendations regarding best practice witness interviewing techniques. However, relatively little is known about police training in collecting and documenting evidence from witness interviews. One hundred seventy-seven police officers from three U.S. states (CT, FL, and MA) were surveyed about witness interview training and practices, perceptions of question type, and recording/documentation of interviews. Results indicate awareness of the importance of asking open-ended questions, but training is lacking, particularly regarding question types. Many officers reported using techniques consistent with the Cognitive Interview such as rapport-building, avoiding leading questions, and taking additional steps to assist recall. Seventy-four percent reported recording interviews via notes or electronic recording devices, while 16% indicated only doing so for certain cases/situations. Fourteen percent also acknowledged not documenting their questions in notes or reports, focusing solely on witness responses. In terms of post-interview documentation, 78% acknowledged writing reports using information elicited during witness interviews. In terms of testimony, 82% reported frequently testifying about witness interview content at criminal trials. Findings suggest that although U.S. police interviewers have implemented some best practice techniques, there are still some considerable training needs as evidenced by self-reported practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Crime & Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2043312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Crime & Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2043312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:美国国家司法研究所的《目击证人证据:执法指南》就证人面谈技术的最佳实践提出了建议。然而,人们对警察在收集和记录证人采访证据方面的培训知之甚少。来自美国三个州(CT、FL和MA)的177名警察接受了关于证人面谈培训和实践、对问题类型的看法以及面谈记录/文件的调查。结果表明,人们意识到提出开放式问题的重要性,但缺乏培训,特别是关于问题类型的培训。许多警官报告说,他们使用了与认知访谈相一致的技巧,如建立融洽关系、避免引导性问题、采取额外措施协助回忆。74%的受访者表示通过笔记或电子录音设备记录采访,而16%的受访者表示只在某些情况下这样做。14%的人承认没有在笔记或报告中记录他们的问题,只关注证人的回答。在采访后的文件方面,78%的人承认使用在证人采访中获得的信息撰写报告。在证词方面,82%的人表示经常在刑事审判中就证人采访内容作证。调查结果表明,尽管美国警察采访者已经实施了一些最佳实践技术,但自我报告的实践证明,仍有一些相当大的培训需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Witness/victim interviewing: a survey of real-world investigators’ training and practices
ABSTRACT The U.S. National Institute of Justice’s Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement makes recommendations regarding best practice witness interviewing techniques. However, relatively little is known about police training in collecting and documenting evidence from witness interviews. One hundred seventy-seven police officers from three U.S. states (CT, FL, and MA) were surveyed about witness interview training and practices, perceptions of question type, and recording/documentation of interviews. Results indicate awareness of the importance of asking open-ended questions, but training is lacking, particularly regarding question types. Many officers reported using techniques consistent with the Cognitive Interview such as rapport-building, avoiding leading questions, and taking additional steps to assist recall. Seventy-four percent reported recording interviews via notes or electronic recording devices, while 16% indicated only doing so for certain cases/situations. Fourteen percent also acknowledged not documenting their questions in notes or reports, focusing solely on witness responses. In terms of post-interview documentation, 78% acknowledged writing reports using information elicited during witness interviews. In terms of testimony, 82% reported frequently testifying about witness interview content at criminal trials. Findings suggest that although U.S. police interviewers have implemented some best practice techniques, there are still some considerable training needs as evidenced by self-reported practices.
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: This journal promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to crime, criminal and civil law, and the influence of law on behavior. The content includes the aetiology of criminal behavior and studies of different offender groups; crime detection, for example, interrogation and witness testimony; courtroom studies in areas such as jury behavior, decision making, divorce and custody, and expert testimony; behavior of litigants, lawyers, judges, and court officers, both in and outside the courtroom; issues of offender management including prisons, probation, and rehabilitation initiatives; and studies of public, including the victim, reactions to crime and the legal process.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信