1 / 15

Public opinion of Japanese interrogation techniques

Public opinion of Japanese interrogation techniques. Taeko Wachi 1 and Michael E. Lamb 2 1 National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan 2 University of Cambridge, UK. This work was supported by Grant -in-Aid for Scientific Research(23730686 ） ．. Introduction .

joann
Download Presentation

Public opinion of Japanese interrogation techniques

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. Public opinion of Japanese interrogation techniques Taeko Wachi1 and Michael E. Lamb2 1 National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan 2 University of Cambridge, UK This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(23730686）．

  2. Introduction • Introduction of the citizen judge system in 2009 encourages us to study public opinion about the Japanese criminal justice system. • Confessions elicited involuntarily and through inappropriate interrogation techniques are not admitted in court. (Code of Criminal Procedure Article 319).

  3. Purpose • To examine • which interview techniques the participants thought were likely to elicit true confessions from guilty suspects • which interview techniques they thought were likely to elicit false confessions from innocent suspects • To examine whether attitudes toward police officers influence their opinions about interrogation

  4. Participants • Sex：Male 36（48.0％）, Female 39（52.0％） • Age：Mean 21.23（SD=3.04) Range 20-45 • Grade：University students Second year 20（26.7％）, Third year 34（45.3％）, Fourth year 20（26.7％）, Other 1 （1.3％） • Nationality：Japanese 100％ • Experiences as citizen judges ： 0％

  5. Method • Self-reported questionnaire administered during a course on Criminal Psychology • After explanation of the survey, students volunteered to participate in the survey.

  6. Material: Questionnaire • Rating interview techniques • The interview techniques used in Wachi et al.’s (2011) study of police officers were explored. • Participants were asked to evaluate whether each technique was likely to elicit true/false confessions • 1= very likely ～　5= not at all likely • Rate how they feel about police officers • 1= like very much ～　7= hate very much

  7. Examples of Five factors used in this study • Presentation of Evidence/Confrontation/ Active Listening/Rapport Building/ Discussion of Crimes • Presentation of Evidence : 4 items • Implying that there was evidence of guilt • Confronting the suspect with actual evidence • Confrontation: 5 items • Expressing impatience and anger towards the suspect • Raising the voice during the interrogation

  8. Five factors used in this study (Contd.) • Active listening : 6 items • Listening to the suspect’s life story or personal history • Listening to the suspect’s stories about his/ her significant others (e.g. parents, spouse, children) • Rapport building : 8 items • Attempting to build a good relationship with the suspect • Treating the suspect in a friendly manner • Discussion of the Crime: 4 items • Attempting to persuade the suspect to think about the meaning of the crime committed • Appealing to the suspect’s conscience

  9. Result : Guilty suspects • Five factors showed significant differences (F(4, 296) = 155.29, p < .001). • “Presentation of evidence” was deemed most likely to elicit true confessions, followed by “Active Listening” and “Discussion of Crime”.

  10. Result : Innocent suspects • Five factors showed significant differences (F(3.16, 234.05) = 107.38, p < .001). • “Confrontation” was deemed most likely to elicit false confessions, followed by “Presentation of Evidence” .

  11. Result : The difference between guilty and innocent suspects Do you think that the following techniques are likely to elicit a true/false confession from a guilty/innocent suspect? 1= very likely to 5= not at all likely

  12. Result : Effect of the attitudes towards police officers • Those who viewed the police negatively considered “Active Listening” to be less effective for obtaining true confessions.

  13. Summary of the findings • “Active Listening” - most preferable • the most likely to elicit true confessions • the least likely to elicit false confessions • “Confrontation” – least preferable • the least likely to elicit true confessions • the most likely to elicit false confessions • “Rapport Building” – preferable • less likely to elicit false confessions

  14. Limitation & Future suggestions • The participants – University students • A study of the general public is needed. • Currently I am administering a Web-based survey on interrogation to the general public. • Questionnaire study- difficult to visualize an interrogation • Studies using other methodologies are required to complement survey studies. • Showing video-taped interviews will be important.

  15. Thank you very much Contact: wachi@nrips.go.jp

More Related