1 / 17

Chris O’Connor, APM Detective Senior Sergeant Crime Interview Adviser

4th Annual Conference. Questioning Sex Offenders & Detecting Deception – Relating Research & Experience: A Detective’s Viewpoint. Chris O’Connor, APM Detective Senior Sergeant Crime Interview Adviser. University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland June 1-3, 2011.

adler
Download Presentation

Chris O’Connor, APM Detective Senior Sergeant Crime Interview Adviser

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 4th Annual Conference Questioning Sex Offenders & Detecting Deception – Relating Research & Experience: A Detective’s Viewpoint. Chris O’Connor, APM Detective Senior Sergeant Crime Interview Adviser University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland June 1-3, 2011

  2. Object of police/suspect questioning ‘to create an environment that maximises the opportunity for the suspect to speak the truth as he/she understands it’

  3. As a class of criminal, sex offenders are not homogenous in motivations, characteristics or offending patterns. • (Bensimon, 2007; Canter, Hughes & Kirby, 1998; Grubin & Kennedy, 1991; Jamieson & Marshall, 2000; Looman, Gauthier & Boer, 2001; Marshall et al., 1990; Serin et al., 1994). • But they do have identifiable similarities

  4. Sex Offenders The literature recognises that sex offending can be a unique form of criminal behaviour (Abel et al., 1984; Marshall, 2001) and the questioning of sex offenders different from other criminals (Holmberg, 2004; Holmberg & Christianson, 2002; Kebbell et al., 2006). Reasons cited include, • Level of social stigma and censure (Quinn, Forsyth, & Mullen-Quinn, 2004); • SO generally less educated and lower IQs than other offenders and non-offenders (Cantor, • Blanchard, Robichaud & Christensen, 2005; Gudjonsson, 2003; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson & Einasson, 2004); • Greater likelihood of experiencing personality disorders than the general population (Fitch, • 2003; Langevin, 2003); • SO develop distorted pro-offence beliefs regarding victims and offence justifications early • in life (Marshall & Barbaree, 1999; Marshall & Marshall, 2000; Ward, 2000; Ward et al., 1997; Ward & Keenan, 1999); • Some police prone to negative attitudes focused on SO (Holmberg, 2004; Holmberg& Christianson, 2002; • Oxburgh, Williamson, & Ost, 2006).

  5. Most sex offenders do make admissions • Particularly in offences where physical violence is not present • or applied only for initial control (e.g. seduction child molesters • and power-reassurance rapists – largest groups of sex offenders). • Often, issue for Qs is not admissions but the level of admissions • i.e. Minimising culpability...gives rise to deceptive responses

  6. Deception Research • Deception - ability deceiver to deceive • Deception Detection - ability detector to detect • Research yet to identify reliable models for deception detection Lie Detection Research – Unspectacular in replicating real truth/lie telling environments

  7. ‘In the real world (but not the laboratory), lie detection requires unprompted suspicion, involves nonbehavioral evidence, and entails nonrandom liar–judge pairings…. They rely on motivational information, physical evidence, and information from third parties.’(Bond & DePaulo, 2008)

  8. Research - Applied areas of deception detection • Dual Processing approach (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Reinhard and Sporer, 2008/2010) • Information analysis –Active Listening • Person-centred approach(Rogers, 1959) • Genuine rapport development (Humanity) • Suspect – Star • Focus on suspect perspective • Identifying Baseline Behaviour (Frank & Ekman, 2003) • ‘Relaxed’ state • Leakage (Ekman, 1997; Vrij, 2008) • Pauses - speech hesitations – less illustrators, generally • Assessing ‘Hotspots’ (Ekman, 2001) • Specific responses - probe hypothesis • Story Cues (DePaulo et al., 2003; Mann et al., 2002) • Probing (relationship building) • Probing (information-gathering)

  9. Liars Self-Presentation –verbal & nonverbal responses designed to convey credibility • Self-Regulation - adjustment of verbal & nonverbal responses based on Q’s response to self-presentation

  10. Liars must manage several tasks simultaneously; • Convey their deceptive message (Self – Presentation) • Continuously monitor the receiver for signs of suspicion (Self- Regulation) • and • Adjust their behaviour accordingly (Self-Regulation)(Buller and Burgoon, 1996) Self-regulation consumes additional mental resources to those already committed to the cognitive construction of the deception. This is a difficult task made harder because the liar is now ‘role playing’ - not acting naturally, as is the case with a truth teller.

  11. Sex Offenders Cognitive Distortions & Motivation to Offend Cognitive Distortions Beliefs that enable the sex offender to better rationalise his behaviour, thereby, making offending a cognitively and emotionally justified action(Kebbell et al, 2010; Mann et al., 2007) Motivations to offend Differ between rapists and child molesters. Rapists are commonly motivated by anger, power and/or sexual desire (Groth et al., 1977) Whereas, overt, gratuitous or sadistic violence is rarely displayed by child molesters (Lanning, 2009) who, as a class of sex offender are commonly motivated by distorted beliefs, sexual desire and deficient psychosocial attributes (Ward & Marshall, 2004)

  12. Implicit Theories Generally, IT developed from an early age to explain a child’s social world (including an understanding of those around them) that are further developed during adolescence and adulthood in order to understand various experiences and behaviours (Beauregard & Leclerc, 2007). Implicit Theories - Child Molesters • Children as sexual objects (children enjoy and desire sex) • Entitlement (I am superior and have the right to assert my needs) • Dangerous world (other people desire to hurt and reject me) • Uncontrollability (the world and my behaviour are controlled by external • forces beyond my control) • Nature of harm (sex is beneficial and therefore is unlikely to harm children) (Ward and Keenan (1999)

  13. Implicit Theories – Rapists • Women are Unknowable/Dangerous • Women as sex objects • Male sex drive is uncontrollable • Entitlement • Dangerous world (Polaschek & Ward 2002)

  14. Questioner’s Perspective When not offending, many SO are unspectacular. They display all the good, bad and in-between thoughts, behaviours and emotions found in the total community (Burn & Brown, 2006). Where SO do deviate is via inappropriate pathways (sex offending) in order to achieve their goals (Marshall, Anderson & Fernandez, 1999). This deviation is often due to believed cognitive, behavioural or emotional deficits that limit the use of pro-social pathways(Marshall et al., 2005). These deficits are often reflected by a lack of self-esteem, confidence, social skills and perceptions (Marshall, Marshall, Serran & O’Brien, 2009). Research conducted with sex offenders in prison and community treatment programs has consistently found that insecure attachment(Marshall, 1989; Smallbone & Dadds, 1998/2000/2001; Ward, Hudson & Marshall, 1996)anger (Groth, 1979; Knight & Prentky, 1990; Ward & Hudson, 2000) and anxiety(Lyn & Burton, 2005) are elements related to sexual violence.

  15. Police Questioner Perspective • Sex offences deeply personal crimes • Questioner often the first person to discuss SO private thoughts & behaviour • About probing behaviour relevant to crime Common deficiencies - Questioners • Qs evaluate SO thinking based on Qs perspective (values & logic) i.e. focus on the why of behaviour rather than the what! • Qs early in Q challenge SO thinking via quasi-counselling/lecturing – often, an anticipated response that reinforces in SO belief that police don’t understand him; therefore minimising the quality of relationship & information received

  16. Qs who approach SO questioning with personal biases about perceived social and moral deficiencies in the suspect’s general and offence behaviour, or who views the suspect with contempt, anger, derision and disrespect will more often than not elicit no or little information(Gudjonsson, 2003; Holmberg & Christianson 2002; Kebbell et al., 2006; Milne & Bull 1999; Moston & Engelberg, 1993; Oxburgh et al., 2006; Shepherd 1991; Stephenson & Moston 1994; Williamson 1993).

  17. 4th Annual Conference Questioning Sex Offenders & Detecting Deception – Relating Research & Experience: A Detective’s Viewpoint. Chris O’Connor, APM Detective Senior Sergeant Crime Interview Adviser University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland June 1-3, 2011

More Related