Introduction
Eyewitness memory is a vivid remembrance of occurrences or events before a crime. Even though eyewitness recounts may be unreliable, they are reliable when uncontaminated (Wixted, 2018). Accounts from eyewitnesses may create a skeleton on which a case will be built. Therefore, evaluating eyewitnesses and their statements is a crucial responsibility of a forensic psychiatrist. The information gathered from survivors, eyewitnesses, and suspects during criminal interviews offers vital investigation leads and influences the evidence presented in future court processes. Effective interviews improve probes by extracting trustworthy and high-quality information (Durrant, 2018). On the contrary, improperly performed questioning risks generating inaccurate information, undermining the legitimacy of an eyewitness or victim, and compromising the investigation process. Importantly, improper interviewing techniques may result in grave injustices.
In the scenario, the detective leading the investigation observes that there are problems with DNA extraction and other corroborating proof being acquired. Therefore the only evidence the authorities have is eyewitness testimony. Additionally, the investigator understands that the eyewitnesses gave different accounts. Further, research has shown that an individual’s memory of an incident is not necessarily the same as what they choose to report during an interview (Melinder et al., 2020). As the situation demonstrates, only three of the 20 customers who were questioned correctly identified the girl in a photo lineup using a picture provided by the parents. Similarly, eight customers said the perpetrator seemed to be a male Latino, while four said the suspect was Black. Investigators can use aspects of forensic psychology to help such witnesses recreate mental pictures of incidents to help retrieve important clues. Therefore, forensic interviewing is the ideal scientific methodology for investigators in this scenario.
Theoretical Framework
Typically investigations conducted by Child Protective Services (CPS) begin with a forensic interview. This method creates proof that will result in criminal charges if the inquiry results in prosecution in conjunction with the information required to determine if a crime has occurred. According to research, forensic psychologists should conduct ethical interviews that adhere to the law by ensuring the interviewer’s neutrality, using non-leading approaches, and prioritizing meticulous interview documentation (Powell et al., 2017). In addition, the victim’s testimony is crucial evidence in child cruelty trials since most offenders refute the abuse, and the majority of abusive actions are not seen.
The expert must conduct regulated forensic interviews to guarantee that evidence is acquired in a manner that is admissible in court. The comments and body language of witnesses must be impartial, and alternate reasons for their testimonies must be extensively investigated. The psychologist should not be aggressive or pushy, for instance, while interacting with witnesses who claim to identify the man but not the girl. Moreover, evidence suggests that properly recorded interview findings may withstand legal examination (O’Donohue, 2021). Using these findings, the forensic psychologist may build evidence-based techniques and deliver successful client services.
Overall, the lack of trustworthiness of eyewitness statements has prompted academics to strive to improve retrieval techniques. Among these methods is the cognitive interview (CI) is one of these approaches. The CI is a method by the detectives to elicit more information concerning a crime scene from witnesses and the victim. The CI was created by Geiselman et al. (1985) as a substitute for the Standard Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 2019). It considers cognitive insights regarding cue-dependent forgetfulness and consists of four steps to trigger many indicators to maximize multiple retrieval pathways.
- Stage 1: Restate the context.
- Stage 2: Recalling events in reverse chronological sequence
- Stage 3: Give every detail they can recall
- Stage 4: Explain events from another person’s perspective
Since human memories are comprised of a web of connections instead of separate and unrelated experiences, several methods exist to retrieve them. The CI takes advantage of this by employing several retrieval techniques (Fisher & Geiselman, 2019). The forensic psychologist can use this method to interview the witnesses. The cognitive interview can complement forensic interviewing to ensure that the investigator retrieves adequate and reliable information from the witnesses. Both techniques can be crucial when interviewing the 12 patrons who provided differing racial descriptions of the suspect.
Recommendations for Best Practices in Forensic Interviewing
Forensic psychologists recognize that the circumstances that lead to psychic examinations of people engaged in legal procedures may affect their behavior in several critical ways, notably their capacity to comprehend and agree to the assessment process. For example, in the case, 15 witnesses stated that the sketch resembled the man they saw with the girl, yet only three could positively identify her. This should indicate that the witnesses are not being truthful with the psychologist. Thus, the witnesses should be reminded that the girl could have been anyone’s child, and with the suspect still at large, there is no certainty of whose child will be next. This way, they will be encouraged to provide as much descriptive information as possible.
The methodologies and processes of forensic professionals are intricate and cannot be correctly predicted by those who get forensic assistance. Therefore, the forensic psychologist must advise the patrons of the scope and boundaries of the assistance rendered. They should be promptly notified of the type and scope of realistically expected forensic assistance. For example, informing that their assistance will be required beyond interviews and may require them to attend the actual criminal trial if the suspect is arrested.
Further, considerable rights, freedoms, and assets are frequently at stake in forensic issues. Accordingly, the forensic psychologist may encounter patrons who have been judged or assumed by law to be incapable of providing informed consent for the expected interview. In such situations, the forensic expert must obtain authorization from a lawfully recognized individual, as allowed or needed by regulations (Gredecki & Turner, 2022). The forensic psychologist should carefully examine whether it is acceptable to perform a forensic examination of a person not accompanied by a lawyer, given the substantial rights that could be disputed in a judicial case. Forensic examiners can contemplate doing such assessments or postponing them to allow the clients to confer with an attorney.
Determining the Clients’ Level of Cognition
To demonstrate a person’s competence, the prosecutors will benefit from completing a thorough evaluation of a witness’s trustworthiness. This will assist the prosecution in responding to competency concerns. The first interview should determine whether the youngster or anyone with low mental ability understands the obligation to speak the truth (Gredecki & Turner, 2022). Next, parents, caretakers, instructors, or physicians who know the person and can testify to their mental capabilities and competence to grasp questions and express responses must be interviewed to determine the witness’s competence history. Interviewing toddlers and individuals with limited mental ability is a sensitive and time-consuming procedure. They should be performed in a way appropriate to the witness’s level of maturity and organized using non-leading queries to generate responses (Melinder et al., 2020). When practicable, detectives with specific interviewing expertise should be used.
Conclusion
Asking a possible victim or a possible eyewitness, “What happened here?” may suffice for the initial field interrogation at the site of an incident. Essentially, it demonstrates that the investigator is not basing their investigation on what is immediately evident to them. Individuals given these questions are encouraged to provide their interpretation of the occurrence. Thus, forensic interviewing is the best method in the absence of hard evidence.
References
Durrant, R. (2018). An introduction to criminal psychology. Routledge.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (2019). Expanding the cognitive interview to non-criminal investigations. In J. J. Dickinson, N. S. Compo, R. N. Carol, B. L. Schwartz, & M. R. McCauley (Eds.), Evidence-based investigative interviewing: Applying cognitive principles (pp. 1–28). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Web.
Gredecki, N., & Turner, P. (2022). Forensic psychology. Routledge
Melinder, A., Brennen, T., Husby, M. F., & Vassend, O. (2020). Personality, confirmation bias, and forensic interviewing performance.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 961-971. Web.
O’Donohue, W. (2021). A Forensic Interview Protocol for Adult Sexual Assault: Content Validity and Consumer Acceptability. International journal of psychology and psychological therapy, 21(2), 133-147. Web.
Powell, M. B., Manger, B., Dion, J., & Sharman, S. J. (2017). Professionals’ perspectives about the challenges of using interpreters in child sexual abuse interviews.Psychiatry, psychology and law, 24(1), 90-101. Web.
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(3), 324-335. Web.