Disengaging and rehabilitating high-value detainees: a small scale qualitative study

In an era of international terrorism, interviews with high-value detainees may have the dual purpose of extracting useful information and of disengagement. We conducted a small-scale, qualitative study using in-depth, individual interviews with 11 experienced interviewers in the Southeast Asia region and Australia, in order to provide insights into the types of interviewing strategies employed in terrorist rehabilitation. Our findings highlight the potential efficacy of creating a physically comfortable and relaxed interview setting, and of using interview strategies that focus on rapport-building, principles of social persuasion and elements of procedural justice, along with a patient and flexible stance to questioning. We suggest that interviewers performing rehabilitation interviews with high-value detainees ought to be trained to use the social approach to interviewing

Interviewing high value detainees: securing cooperation and disclosures

Summary: Four types of coercive and noncoercive interview strategies (legalistic, physical, cognitive and social) used to facilitate disclosure by high value detainees were examined in an international sample of practitioners and detainees (N=64). Predictive analyses confirmed that the accusatorial approach was positively correlated with physically coercive strategies (rs =.58) and negatively with forms of social persuasion (rs= -.31). In response to social strategies, detainees were more likely to disclose meaningful information [odds ratio (OR) =4.2] and earlier in the interview when rapport-building techniques were used (OR =14.17). They were less likely to cooperate when confronted with evidence (OR=4.8). Disclosures were more complete in response to noncoercive strategies, especially rapport-building and procedural fairness elements of respect and voice. These findings augmented past theory on interactional processes and the evidence-base of international best practices in suspect interviews

The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments

Research into court interpreting has shown that interpreters can have an impact on the case in many different ways. However, the extent to which this occurs depends on several factors, including the interpreter’s competence, ethics and specialized training in court interpreting, as well as working conditions. One little explored aspect is whether use of consecutive vs. simultaneous interpreting can impact jurors’ perception of a witness or other interpreted party. This paper reports on the results of a large-scale experimental study, with a simulated trial run in different conditions, involving a total of 447 mock jurors. The aim was to identify any differences in the way jurors in Australian courts might assess theevidence of an accused called as a witness, in a monolingual hearing as well as when interpreted consecutively and simultaneously from Spanish to English. Overall, jurors’ recollection of case facts did not differ significantly for the three conditions, though was lower for consecutive during the afternoon. Jurors also found consecutive more distracting; on the other hand, the consecutive mode was associated with significantly more favourable perception of the accused’s evidence than simultaneous interpreting or monolingual communication. Although jurors found the prosecution to be less convincing when the accused’s evidence was interpreted consecutively compared to the other proceedings, theinterpretation mode made no difference to the verdict

Jury Reasoning in Joint and Separate Trials of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse: An Empirical Study

This report forms part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’s research program in relation to criminal justice system’s response to child sexual abuse in institutional contexts. This study investigated the extent to which joint trials with cross-admissible tendency evidence infringed defendants’ rights, and the extent to which joint trials posed a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. In particular, we investigated the reasoning processes of juries in a simulated joint trial of sex offences involving three complainants versus a separate trial involving a single complainant. Our jury deliberation and reasoning study investigated these issues by presenting 10 different versions of a videotaped trial involving the same core evidence to a total of 1,029 jury-eligible mock jurors. The study tested the impact of evidence strength, the number of charges and the presence of specific judicial directions on jury decision-making in joint versus separate trials. The five key aims of the project were to: 1. document juries’ interpretation of cross-admissible evidence in a joint child sexual abuse trial, to determine the extent to which juries engage in impermissible reasoning regarding such evidence 2. compare the above decision-making processes with those of juries in a separate trial involving the same defendant 3. compare trial outcomes (acquittal, conviction or hung jury) in a joint versus separate trial involving the same defendant 4. examine the relationship between jurors’ misconceptions about child sexual abuse, jury deliberations and decisions, and trial outcomes 5. determine the effect of question trail use on juries’ reasoning and decisions

Effects on situational and relational variables on interpreting in high stakes interviewing

This project examined the effectiveness of three specific interpreting practices to mitigate risks in interpreted police interviews and to reduce the potential for interpreting errors. Increasingly, interviewers rely on interpreters because they lack proficiency in the language spoken by the suspect. Yet little is known about ways that situational and relational factors within the control of the interviewer can be implemented to minimize risks or error. The present study addressed this gap in the literature by testing how real interpreters perform under different circumstances within the control of the interviewer. The key factors were the influence of (a) the presence of an interpreter (monolingual vs. consecutive interpreted interview by trained interpreters vs. untrained bilinguals vs. monolingual intermediaries); (b) the position of the interpreter in the interview in relation to the interviewer and suspect (adjacent to or behind the interviewee); and (c) maintenance by the interpreter of rapport-building strategies used by the interviewer.A simulated interview tested the impact on interpreters’ performance of (a) their understanding of the interpreter’s role; (b) changes in interpreter placement; and (c) an information sheet on the importance of interviewer-interviewee rapport. A scripted interview containing typical interpreting challenges in propositional content, legal terminology, rapport-building strategies, manner of delivery, coordination of turn-taking and ethical protocols was performed by professional actors who role-played a police interviewer and a suspect with 99 English-Spanish untrained bilinguals and trained interpreters and 65 trained and untrained monolingual intermediary interview facilitators. The intermediaries served as a control group for the presence of a third party at an investigative interview.Participants completed a pre-experiment questionnaire about the interpreter’s role and their formal interpreting or facilitation training, and one half read a pilot-tested rapport-maintenance information sheet. In the simulated interview, all participants interpreted from both a triangular position and behind the suspect (changed mid-way through the interview). A post-experiment questionnaire for participants sought ratings of the suspect’s credibility. The performance of all participants was rated by the actors who were blind to their background. Interpretations were transcribed and objectively coded for accuracy on the interpreting challenges and interpreting competence. Rapport-maintenance was assessed verbally, paraverbally and nonverbally.Formally trained interpreters were more likely to understand and perceive their role as neutral and outperformed bilinguals on all measures of accuracy and competence. Interpreting training predicted fewer errors and omissions (d = -1.98), better maintenance of verbal rapport markers (d = 1.56), and nonverbal communication, namely, pace (d = 1.48), tone of voice (d = 1.54), emotional variation (d = 1.48), and facial expression (d = 0.87). Together, interpreter training and understanding of the role accounted for 40% of the observed differences in proficiency between trained interpreters and untrained bilinguals.Overall, the rapport maintenance information sheet did not assist trained interpreters or untrained bilinguals in replicating rapport-building strategies in either the triangular position or from behind the suspect. Finishing in the triangular position increased perceptions that the interaction between the police interviewer and suspect was positive but did not improve interpreting performance. Untrained bilinguals who reviewed the information sheet used the first person while interpreting significantly more than their counterparts who did not receive this information.Results support the need for universally available legal training for interpreters. To secure accurate reproduction of verbal and nonverbal communication and maintenance of rapport-building strategies practitioners are advised to use legally trained interpreters

Interpreter presence, mode, and language in investigative interviews

Increasingly, interpreting in police interviews is conducted via video or phone, yet the role of visual attention in interpreting is unclear. Effects of interpreter presence, mode and language were tested in a live simulated police-suspect interview repeated with 103 qualified Arabic-, Mandarin- and Spanish-speaking interpreters. Multiple performance criteria were assessed in a mixed 3 (Presence: face-to-face, via videolink, via audiolink) x 3 (Language: Spanish, Mandarin, Arabic) x 2 (Mode: consecutive, simultaneous) design. Overall performance and pace replication were unaffected by language but were significantly better in the simultaneous than consecutive mode, and significantly better face-to-face and via videolink than by phone. Sources of difference were interaction management and to a lesser extent, rapport maintenance. No differences emerged between language groups, except for the maintenance of vulgarities and emotional expressivity: Arabic-speaking interpreters were more likely than Spanish-speaking interpreters to omit vulgar language. Mandarin-speaking interpreters tended to neutralize paraverbal emotional expressivity and maintained vulgarities more consistently in the consecutive than the simultaneous interpreting mode. Eye tracking confirmed a dominant focus on the interviewer. Pupil dilation and blink rates showed greater cognitive load during consecutive than simultaneous interpreting and over time. The latter but not the former finding was supported by interpreter ratings of self-reported mental effort. Visual attention (gaze time) correlated best with accuracy; shifting attention between interviewer and suspect correlated best with rapport maintenance and interaction management. Reduced cognitive load and increased visual attention contributed independently to interpreting reliability. Simultaneous interpreting was most reliable; consecutive and telephone interpreting more prone to error