Forensic Psychology For Dummies (36 page)

Although the use of PEACE has had beneficial effects on police interviewing, there are still police officers interrupting and asking focused, closed questions. In part, this seems to be because the PEACE framework goes against the grain of police culture, which is to make forceful assumptions about an event and then use the interview to get confirmation of that assumption.

Using investigative hypnosis

What is hypnosis? Now, that’s a big question! You may believe that it’s a special trance-like state that reaches aspects of consciousness that aren’t reached any other way. Or, you may think it’s just a form of relaxed concentration that allows people to focus on certain things more clearly.

Experts frown on the stage hypnotist who’s apparently making people do silly things against their will. Research studies show that it’s difficult to get someone to do things against their will while under hypnosis, but you can certainly confuse the person. Also, not everyone can be readily hypnotised. As part of my forensic psychology training, I attended hypnosis sessions, but I never got into anything other than a slightly edgy, quiet state; and yet I can fall asleep during a classical music concert without any difficulty!

But whatever hypnosis really is, there is no doubt that in special circumstances it can help witnesses or victims to remember more clearly what they saw. It’s only used very rarely when it’s thought that a person may be able to remember some crucial detail if carefully helped. It has the risk like any intensive interview process of distorting what is remembered, therefore many safeguards are recommended if hypnosis is being used in a criminal investigation. For example, the hypnotist has to be fully trained and must have no other involvement in the investigation, and the hypnosis session must be always fully recorded by audio or preferably video.

There are a number of stages to follow in investigative hypnosis:

1. Preparation:
Reviewing what’s already known about the crime and the witness or victim and finding out what needs to be known.

2.
Introduction:
Telling the person being hypnotised what is going to happen and why.

3.
Induction of the hypnotic state:
Can include eye fixation, looking upwards while closing the eyes, deep breathing, muscle relaxation and repeated instructions to relax.

4.
Deepening the state:
Increasing the comfort of the person being hypnotised, using images of being on a sunny beach or other relaxing location.

5.
Drawing out
information:
Reminding the witness of the crime scene and then getting the person to give a further account of what happened. A witness can be prompted at this stage to go into yet more detail. A post-hypnotic suggestion can also be used to help the witness remember other material, to help a further interview.

6.
Bringing the person out of the hypnotic state:
Using instructions to make the person feel calm, relaxed, normal in every way and fully awake.

Investigative hypnosis is a powerful procedure, but is open to all the problems, confusion and influences that I discuss in the earlier section ‘Facing up to false memories’ and related matters. Because of this, many courts don’t allow information obtained under hypnosis to be used as evidence.

Helping children tell what happened

Children become involved in criminal proceedings for many reasons: as victims, witnesses, and as defendants. There have been swings of opinion on whether children should be allowed to give evidence at all and much debate about how to involve them in court. These days young children (often what is ‘young’ will depend on the maturity of the child and the views of the judge) rarely appear in the actual courtroom and in the UK they are generally interviewed in a separate room, with the interview being video-recorded. This arrangement makes for less intimidating surroundings and the interview is more likely to be successful.

An interview supporter, interpreter or intermediary may be used in an interview to make sure that the child understands what’s being asked of them. Such a person is referred to as an
appropriate adult.
Props, such as dolls, may also be employed during the interview.

When interviewing children, you need to follow four main stages:

1. Establishing rapport with the child.

2. Getting the child to provide a free flowing, uninterrupted narrative of what happens in their own words.

3. Asking specific questions based on that free narrative.

4. Obtaining closure (for example, post-interview counselling).

There’s a lot of debate about whether children can be regarded as reliable witnesses and, if so, at what age a child is able give a clear and reliable account. In Chapter 5, I look at how experts examine children’s statements for validity. This is an important issue because in certain cases children are the only witnesses.

Looking Into Eyewitness Testimony

Witnesses are essential in a criminal investigation, providing on-the-spot and relevant evidence in court proceedings. An
eyewitness’s testimony
is often vitally important in catching a criminal, and yet problems can arise about the accuracy of eyewitness evidence.

The reasons for errors in identifications are complex and not fully understood, but many academic studies point to relevant factors such as the length of time between the alleged event and the identification.

A witness can feel the pressure to perform. When a witness is brought in by the police to an identification parade the witness is likely to assume that the police have a suspect in mind or even in custody. He therefore feels he has to pick someone, even if the officer showing the photographs or running the line-up is careful not to force the issue.

Also, line-up administrators can sometimes unintentionally communicate their knowledge about which line-up member is the suspect and which members are fillers, through giving verbal and non-verbal cues. This tendency has been confirmed by a study in which some line-up administrators were given assumptions that one person was the culprit, but other administrators were given the assumption it was a different person. The person identified in the line-up varied depending on the assumption the administrator had been given!

There are important differences between
recalling
an event, which draws heavily on the need to reconstruct what happened (as I discuss in the earlier section ‘Remembering That Memory Can Mislead’), and
recognition
when you’re faced with choosing an option. For example, you may not be able to recall a name but can readily choose the correct name from those on offer.

Although recognition is generally more accurate than recall, recognition is still open to distortions, for example:

Age:
Witnesses are most accurate when calculating the age of someone of a similar age, being familiar with that age group. And, the greater the difference between the age of the witness and the age of the offender, the less accurate a witness’s estimate of the offender’s age is likely to be.