Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Introduction: Cases of refusal by a person questioned to testify after the first interrogation, repeated changes in the content of his testimony, statements of an interrogated person and his lawyers about the use of inadmissible methods of investigation against him, etc. inspire the search for reliable means of recording oral texts and the very situation of texts production during an interrogation. Properly technically and psychologically organised video recording of investigative actions presents a valuable tool for analysing the behaviour of an interrogated person and reliable evidence at the subsequent, judicial stage of the investigation. Methods. The research is based on the system approach, general scientific methods (theoretical analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), specific scientific methods: specification, interpretation, comparative research method. The foreign experience of conducting investigative actions with the use of video recording during an interrogation of especially valuable suspects has been generalised. The obtained results were interpreted by means of expert psychological analysis. Results. Interpersonal interaction during interrogation process, supported by tracking the dynamics of communicative behaviour through psychological examination of the video record, present more significant results and higher confession rates than traditional interrogation techniques. Of particular importance is the use of psychotherapeutic techniques and the construction of motivational discourse, in particular, sustained rapport, which allows establishing reliable relationship of trust between an investigator and an interviewee. Training investigators in the psychological frameworkof using video recording, and further analysis of their performance before and after training, show significant changes in the use of evidence-based interrogation tactics, including extendeduse of open-ended questions, positive affirmations, and basic elements of cognitive interview, which has prolonged positive effect.
investigative actions, digital technologies, psychology, video recording, interrogation, credibility, rapport
1. Lassiter, G. D., Ware, L. J., Lindberg, M. J., & Ratcliff, J. J. Videotaping custodial interrogations: Toward a scientifically based policy. In G.D. Lassiter & C.A. Meissner (Eds.) Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations. – Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2010. – P. 143–160.
2. Akhmedshin R. L. Taktika kommunikativnykh sledstvennykh deystviy : monografiya / nauch. red. N. T. Vedernikov. – Tomsk: Izdatel’skiy dom Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014. – 294 s.
3. Yengalychev V. F. Psikhologicheskiy analiz povedeniya, zafiksirovannogo na videozapisi, kak novoye napravleniye sudebnoy psikhologicheskoy ekspertizy / Sudebno-psikhologicheskaya ekspertiza i kompleksnyye sudebnyye issledovaniya videozapisey : sbornik nauchnykh statey, 16 marta 2017 g. – Moskva: RGUP, 2017. – S. 11–16.
4. Gusev A. N., Yengalychev V. F., Zakharova N. A. Sovremennyye trendy v ispol’zovanii programmno-apparatnykh sredstv pri otsenke psikhoemotsional’nogo sostoyaniya cheloveka / Apparatnyye sredstva v psikhologicheskoy podgotovke : materialy mezhregional’noy nauchnoprakticheskoy konferentsii psikhologov silovykh struktur «Nauchno-metodicheskiye aspekty ispol’zovaniya programmno-apparatnykh sredstv i trenazherov v psikhologicheskoy podgotovke voyennosluzhashchikh», , 25 oktyabrya 2017 g. / pod red. A. G. Karayani, S. I. Danilova. – Moskva: Shkola sovremennykh psikhotekhnologiy, 2018. – S. 110–118.
5. Conger K. Good stranger: DoD records citizens’ encounters with SFPD / San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Centre (June 28, 2012). – URL: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/good-stranger-dod-records-citizens-encounters-withsfpd/Content?oid=2185532.
6. Walsh D., Bull R. Benefit fraud investigative interviewing: A self-report study of investigation professionals’ beliefs concerning practice // Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. – 2011. – No 8. – P. 131–148; https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.137.
7. Kelly C. E., Miller J. C., Redlich D. The dynamic nature of interrogations // Law and Human Behavior. – 2016. – No 40 (3). – P. 295–309; https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000172.
8. Wachi T., Watanabe K., Tokota K., Otsuka Y., Kuraishi H., Lamb M. Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan. // Psychology, Crime & Law. –20147. – No 20 (7). – P. 673–694; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.854791.
9. Alison L. J., 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 // Psychology, Public Policy and Law. – 2013. – No 19 (4). – P. 411–431; https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564.
10. Miller W. R., Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. – New York: Guilford Press, 1991. – 348 p.
11. Deci E. L., Ryan R. M. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press, 2002. – 470 p.
12. Alison L. J., 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 // Psychology, Public Policy and Law. – 2013. – No 19 (4). – 411–431; https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564.
13. Taylor P. J., Conchie S. M., van der Zee S., Larner S. Cross-cultural deception detection. In P. A. Granhag, A. Vrij, B. Verschuere (Eds.) Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches. – Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015. – P. 175–201.
14. Milne R., Bull R. Investigative interviewing psychology and practice. – Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. – 224 p; https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.444.
15. House J. Communicative styles in English and German // European Journal of English Studies. – 2006. – No 10 (3). – P. 249–267; https://doi.org/10.1080/13825570600967721.
16. Delwiche A. A., Henderson J. J. The players they are a-changin’: The rise of older MMO gamers // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronics Media. – 2013. – No 57 (2). – P. 205–223; https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.787077.
17. Holmberg U., Christianson S. A. Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes // Behavioral Sciences & the Law. – 2002. – No 20 (1-2). – P. 31–45; https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.470.
18. Beune K., Giebels E., Taylor P. J. Patterns of interaction in police interviews: The role of cultural dependency // Criminal Justice and Behavior. – 2010. – No 37 (8). – P. 904–925; https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810369623.
19. Ting-Toomey S., Oetzel J. G. Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. – 2001; https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229485.
20. Gelfand M. J., McCusker C. Metaphor and the cultural construction of negotiation: A paradigm for research and practice. In Gannon M., Newman K. L. (Eds.) Handbook of cross-cultural management. – New York: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2002. – P. 282–314; https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405164030.ch15.
21. Gelfand M. J., Severance L., Lee T., Bruss C. B., Lun J., Abdel-Latif A. H., al-Moghazy A. A., Moustafa A. S. Culture and getting to yes: The linguistic signature of creative agreements in the United States and Egypt // Journal of organizational behaviour. – 2015. – No 36 (7). – P. 967–989; https://doi.org/10.1002/JOB.2026.
22. Gelfand M. J., Smith V., Raver J., Nishii L., O’Brien K. Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations // Academy of Management Review – 2006. – № 31 (2), – P. 427–445; https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.20208689.
23. Kopelman S. Negotiating genuinely: Being yourself in business. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2014. – 88 p.
24. Oetzel J. G., Ting-Toomey S. Face concerns in interpersonal conflict a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory // Communication Research, – 2003. – No 30 (6). – P. 599–624; https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257841.
25. Oetzel J. G., Yokochi Y., Masumoto T., Takai J. A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers // Communication Quarterly. – 2000. – № 48 (4). – P. 397–419; https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385606.
26. Leins D. A., Zimmerman L. A., Cheng K. Field observations of DOD videos: exploring interrogator tactics, methods and outcomes [Report submitted to the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, Washington D.C. (2014)] // FBI.GOV. – URL: //www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-interrogation-a-review-of-the-science-september-2016.pdf.
27. Dep’t of Justice, new department policy concerning electronic recording of statements // Harvard Law Review. – 2015. – Vol. 128. – Is. 5. P. 1552–1559. – URL: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-128/dept-of-justice-new-department-policy-concerning-electronic-recording-of-statements/.
28. Attorney General Holder Announces Significant Policy Shift Concerning Electronic Recording of Statements : Press Release (May 22, 2014) // Office of Public Affairs. U.S. Department of Justice. – URL: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-holder-announces-significantpolicy-shift-concerning-electronic-recording.
29. Leo R. A. Police interrogation and American justice. – Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. – P. 374.
30. Lassiter G. D. Psychological science and sound public policy: Video recording of custodial interrogations // American Psychologist. – 2010. – No 65 (8). – P. 768–779; https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.65.8.768.
31. Boetig B. P., Vinson D. M., Weidel B. R. Revealing incommunicado // FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. – 2006. – No 1-10. – URL: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/hig-report-interrogationa-review-of-the-science-september-2016.pdf.
32. Sandoval V. A. Strategies to avoid interview contamination // FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. – 2003. – Vol. 72. – Is. 10. – URL: https://www.coursehero.com/file/55332869/JUS-201-DISCUSSION-5docx/.
33. Sullivan T. P. Police experiences with recording custodial interrogations // Judicature. – 2004. – No 88 (3). – P. 132–136.
34. Lassiter G. D. Illusory causation in the courtroom // Current Directions in Psychological Science. – 2002. – 11 (6). – P. 204–208; https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00201.
35. Lassiter G. D. Psychological science and sound public policy: Video recording of custodial interrogations // American Psychologist . – 2010. – No 65 (8). – P. 768–779; https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.65.8.768.
36. DePaulo B. M., Lindsay J. L., Malone B. E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., Cooper H. Cues to deception // Psychological Bulletin. – 2003. – No 129. – P. 74–118; https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.
37. Levine T. Active deception detection // Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. –2014. – No 1-1. – P. 122–128; https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548863.
38. Mann S., Vrij A., Bull R. Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect deceit // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004. – No 89. – P. 137–149; https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137.
39. Mann S., Vrij A., Leal S., Granhag P. A., Warmelink L., Forrester D. Windows to the soul? Deliberate eye contract as a cue to deceit // Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, – 2012. – No 36 (3). – P. 205–215; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-012-0132-y.
40. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. – Chichester; Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2008. – 488 p.
41. Inbau F. E., Reid J. E., Buckley J. P., Jayne B. C. Criminal interrogation and confessions. – Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013. – 469 p.
42. Vrij A., Semin G. R. Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception // Nonverbal Behav. – 1996. – Vol. 20. – P. 65–80; https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248715.
43. Kassin S. M., Fong C. T. “I’m Innocent!” Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room // Law & Human Behavior. – 1999. – No 23 (5). – P. 499–507; https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022330011811.
44. Hauch V., Sporer S. L., Michael S. W., Meissner C. A. Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta–analysis // Communication Research. – 2016. – No 43 (3). – P. 283–343; https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974.
45. Inbou F. E., Reid J. E., Buckley J. P., Jayne B. C. Criminal interrogation and confessions. – Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. – 472 p.
46. Ekman P. Telling lies : clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage. – New York: Norton, 1985. – 320 p.
47. Porter S., ten Brinke L. Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions // Psychological Science. – 2008. – Vol. 19. – Is. 5. – P. 508–514; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02116.
48. Gordon N., Fleisher W. Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques. – New York: Academic Press, 2006. – 384 p.
49. Bhatt S., Brandon S. E. Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) in investigative interviewing: Recommended alternative methods // Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice (II-RP). –2015. – Vol. 7. – Is. 1. – P. 51–62.
50. Abbe A., Brandon S. E. Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews // Police Practice and Research. – 2014. – No 15 (3). – P. 207–220; https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.827835.
51. Chartrand T. L., Lakin J. L. The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry // Annual Review of Psychology. – 2012. – No 64 (1). – P. 285–308; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754.
52. Stel M., van Dijk E., Olivier E. You want to know the truth? Then don’t mimic! // Psychological Science. 2009. – No 20 (6). – P. 693–699; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02350.x.
53. Cappella J. N. On defining conversational coordination and rapport // Psychological Inquiry. – 1990. – No 1 (4). – P. 303–305; https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_5.
54. Van der Zee S. The effect of cognitive load on nonverbal mimicry in interview settings. (Unpublished doctoral thesis.) Lancaster, U.K.: Lancaster University, 2013.
