PSYCHOLOGY OF INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEWING: IMPLICATIONS OF MENDEZ PRINCIPLES IN ADVANCING THE FIELD

Öz

While procedural regulations describe legal frameworks in obtaining suspect statements, forensic psychological research has refined suspect interview methods around the world. Historically, suspect interrogations have evolved from third degree tactics (e.g., physical pressure) to psychological coercive methods (e.g., REID model) and finally evidence based inquisitory models (e.g., PEACE). Following the abolishment of third degree methods, the psychological coercive methods (e.g., REID model) became prevalent in North America. This approach aims to obtain confessions via a nine-step protocol. Initially, the REID model training modules were in demand around the world as authorities were able to obtain confessions without resorting to physical coercion. However, a significant number of these confessions were found to be false, thanks to DNA evidence. Contemporary empirical findings suggest that criminal investigators should focus on facilitating information gathering process rather than striving to obtain confessions from suspects. For instance, the PEACE model from England and Wales appears to be more effective than unstructured interviews or coercive models. This model also fit well with legal frameworks in Turkiye and in many other jurisdictions. In a 2016 appeal to the U.N. General Assembly, former U.N. Special Rapporteur Jean E. Mendez underlined the international concern for coercion in interviews. This paper argues that psychological research has much to offer in assisting criminal proceedings by refining suspect interview procedures. In this framework, this paper examined the evolvement of investigative interview methods. The findings suggest that coercive models compromises human rights and also ineffective in obtaining admissible evidence in comparison to inquisitory models.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• False Confessions
• Investigative Inverview Methods
• the REID
• the PEACE
• and the Mendez Principles

Ceza Soruşturmaları Bağlamında İfade Yöntemlerinin Psikolojik Boyutları: Mendez Prensiplerinin Alanın İlerlemesine Katkıları

Öz

Ceza muhakemeleri usulleri şüpheli ifadelerinin yasal çerçevelerini çizerken, dünya genelinde adli psikolojik araştırmalar ifade alma yöntemlerinin geliştirilmesine katkı sağlamıştır. Tarih içinde şüpheli ifadeleri üçüncü derece taktiklerden (örn., fiziksel cebir) psikolojik baskı içeren sorgu yöntemlerine (örn., REİD) ve son olarak kanıt temelli araştırıcı modellere (örn., PEACE) dönüşmüştür. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde fiziksel şiddet içeren üçüncü derece ifade yöntemlerinin yürürlükten kaldırılmasını takiben Kuzey Amerika’da REİD ve benzeri sorgu modelleri yaygınlaşmıştır. Söz konusu yöntemler fiziksel şiddet kullanmaksızın şüphelilerin isnat edilen suçları itiraf etme olasılıklarını artırdığı için ilk yıllarda dünya genelinde rağbet görmüştür. Bununla birlikte, ilerleyen yıllarda DNA analizleriyle elde edilen deliller söz konusu itirafların bir kısmının sahte (asılsız) olduğunu göstermiştir. Güncel araştırma sonuçları ceza soruşturması yürüten yetkililerin şüpheli itiraflarına odaklanmak yerine bilgi toplama süreçlerini kolaylaştırmaya odaklanmalarını önermektedir. Örneğin, İngiltere ve Galler’de geliştirilen ve kanıt temelli araştırıcı modellerden biri olan PAECE yapılandırılmamış ve REİD modelinden daha etkili yöntemleri içermektedir. Bu model aynı zamanda Türkiye ve diğer ülkelerdeki ceza muhakemeleri usullerine de uygun görünmektedir. 2016 yılında dönemin B.M. özel raportörü Jean E. Mendez’in B.M. Genel Kuruluna yaptığı çağrıda şüpheli ifadelerinde zorlama ve kötü muameleler ilgili uluslararası endişelerin altını çizmiştir. Bu makale psikolojik araştırmalarının kanıt temelli şüpheli ifade alma yöntemlerin geliştirmesi yoluyla ceza yargılamalarına katkı sağlayabileceğini önermektedir. Bu çerçevede, bu çalışmada suç soruşturmalarında etkili şüpheli ifade yöntemlerinin gelişim süreçleri ve uluslararası uygulamalar değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları psikolojik veya fiziksel baskı ve şiddet içeren modellerinin evrensel insan hakları prensiplerine aykırı uygulamalara yol açabildiği ve kanıt temelli araştırıcı modellere kıyasla hukuki delil niteliğinde bilgi toplama yönünden de yetersiz olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asılsız İtiraflar
• İfade Alma Yöntemleri
• REİD Sorgu Modeli
• PEACE modeli
• Mendez Prensipleri

Kaynakça

1. Alison LJ, Alison E, Shortland N and Surmon-Bohr F, ORBIT: The Science of Rapport-Based Interviewing for Law Enforcement, Security, and Military (Oxford University Press 2020)
2. Alison LJ, Alison E, Noone G, Elntib S, Christiansen P, “Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing rapport based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists” (2013) 19(4) Psychology Public Policy and Law, 411
3. Barron TW, “The PEACE model of investigative interviewing: A comparison trained and untrained suspect interviewers” Unpublished MA Thesis, (2917) 25-28 Memorial University of Newfoundland https://research.library.mun.ca/12911/1/thesis.pdf, retrieved on 2021-09-25.
4. Bartol RC, and Bartol AM, History of Forensic Psychology in Irving B. Weiner IB and Hess AK (eds), Wiley Series on Personality Processes. Handbook of Forensic Psychology (Oxford 1987)
5. British Psychological Society, “United Nations may recommend PEACE approach” (2016) 29 The Psychologist, 896
6. Collins R, Lincoln RA and Mark Frank M, “The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing” (2002) 9(1) Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 69
7. Eastwood J and Snook B, “The effect of listenability factors on the comprehension of police cautions” (2012) 36(3) Law and Human Behavior, 83
8. Harman G, “Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error” (1999) 9(1) Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 315-331.

9. Hartwig M and Bond CF, “Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgements” (2011) 137(4) Psychological Bulletin, 643
10. Hill C, Memon A and McGeorge P, “The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation” (2008) 13(2) Legal and Criminological Psychology, 357
11. Holmberg U and Christianson S, “Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes” (2002) 20(1-2) Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31
12. Howitt D, Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology (6th ed. Pearson Canada 2018)
13. Inbau FE, Reid JE, Buckley JP and Jayne BC, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (5th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013)
14. Inbau FE and Reid JE, Criminal Interrogation and Confession (Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins Co. 1962)
15. Irving B, Police interrogation. A case study of current practice (London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1980)
16. Kassin SM, “The social psychology of false confessions” (2015) 9(1) Social Issues and Policy Review, 25.
17. Kassin SM and Gudjonsson GH, “The psychology of confessions: A review of the Literature and Issues” (2004) 5(2) Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 33
18. Kassin SM, Leo RA, Meissner CA, Richman KD, Colwell LH, Leach AM and La Fon D, “Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs” (2007) 31 Law and Human Behaviour 381
19. King L and Shook B, “Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room” (2009) 36(7) Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 674
20. Meissner CA, Redlich AD, Michael S, Evans JR, Camilletti CR, Bhatt S and Brandon S, “Accusatorial and information gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta analytic review” (2014) 10(4) Journal of Experimental Criminology, 459
21. Meissner CA and Russano MB, “The psychology of interrogations and confessions: Research and recommendations” (2003) 1(1) Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 53.
22. Munsterberg H, On the Witness Stand (Doubleday 1908)
23. Pozzulo J, Bennell C and Forth A, Forensic Psychology (5th ed. Pearson Canada 2018)
24. Snook S, Eastwood J and Barron TW, “The next stage in the evaluation of interrogations: The PEACE model” (2014) 18(2) Canadian Criminal Law Review, 219
25. Sporer SL and Schwandt B, “Paraverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis” (2006) 20 (4) Applied Cognitive Psychology, 421.
26. Taylor FG, “Chicago Police Torture Scandal: A legal and Political History” (2013) 17 The CUNY Law Review, 329
27. Vrij A, Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, (2nd ed. West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons, 2011)
28. Vrij A, Fisher RP, Mann S and Sharon Leal S, “Detecting deception by manipulating cognitive load” (2006) 10 (4) Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 141
29. Vrij A and Par Anders Granhag, PA Interviewing to detect deception in S.A: Christianson (ed), Offenders’ memories of violent crimes (John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2007)
30. Vrij A, Meissner CA, Fisher RP, Kassin SM, Morgan CA and Kleinman SM, “Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation” (2017) 12(6) Perspectives on Psychological Science, 927
31. Walsh D, King M and Griffiths A, “Evaluating interviews which search for the truth with suspects: But are investigators’ self-assessments of their own skills truthful ones?” (2017) 23(7) Psychology Crime & Law, 1
32. Walsh D and Bull R, “What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interview skills against interviewing outcomes” (2010) 15 Legal and Criminological Psychology, 305