Gaining Witness Cooperation: An International Survey of Investigative Interviewers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The application of interviewing strategies to gather accurate and detailed witness accounts is highly dependent on witness cooperation. However, some witnesses who recall the crime are unwilling to be involved in the criminal investigation. For example, some uncooperative witnesses are resistant to disclose valid information to aid the case, while others who have been intimidated or are hostile towards the police are simply reluctant to talk. Therefore, lack of witness cooperation represents a significant obstacle to law enforcement gathering witness evidence. Furthermore, emergent research indicates that lack of cooperation is detrimental to the amount and accuracy of information disclosed by witnesses, and that it affects how investigative interviews are conducted. Thus, we focus this research on how practitioners overcome lack of witness cooperation and interview initially uncooperative witnesses. Study purpose: To conduct the first examination of current investigative interviewing of uncooperative witnesses from an international practitioner’s perspective. We examined practitioner’s beliefs regarding and witnesses’ motives to cooperate and not cooperate in criminal investigations. In addition, we aimed to learn the prevalence and relevance of this topic according to their experience, as well as which strategies practitioners believe to be effective specifically to interview witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate and disclose information. Method: Police officers who conduct witness interviews took part in an online survey. Participants (N = 227) were investigative interviewers across different police services in The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Canada, and Australia. Results: Data is currently being translated, analysed and will be presented at the conference. We expect interviewing of uncooperative witnesses to be different across countries according to police interviewing experience, training, institutional demands and each country’s tradition of interviewing, whether information gathering or accusatorial. Specifically, we predict that practitioners’ belief that witnesses ought to cooperate, together with lack of training and flexibility influence the perception of effectiveness of interviewing strategies that in fact interfere with the task of gaining and maintaining cooperation (e.g., using closed and probative questions). In addition, we expect that current practice does not target how to increase motivation to cooperate and is detrimental to witnesses’ memory processes (e.g., poor rapport building). Lastly, practitioners aiming to overcome lack of witness cooperation may be resorting to interviewing strategies which have unknown consequences for the validity and reliability of witness accounts, such as legal warnings about lying and withholding information, moral appeals, or anonymity incentives. Conclusions: Findings from this research are of vital importance to reflect and improve the quality of witness interviewing by identifying and changing practice that does not promote cooperation or increases witness reluctance to disclose information. In addition, understanding how interviewers’ beliefs regarding witness cooperation (and lack thereof) affect information gathering during investigative interviews is necessary to inform interviewing training and lines of research that examine the effects of current practice on witness accounts considering their importance to advance criminal investigations and as evidence in court. Most importantly, given the practical relevance of this topic, future research examining field data is warranted to examine the extent to which practitioner’s beliefs, perceptions and experiences of interviewing uncooperative witnesses affect real witness interviewing practice. Key words: Investigative interviewing, cooperation, information elicitation, police survey.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».