Framing in criminal investigation

Abstract

Failures in criminal investigation may lead to wrongful convictions. Insight in the criminal investigation process is needed to understand how these investigative failures may rise and how measures can contribute to the prevention of this kind of failures. Some of the main findings of an empirical study of the criminal investigation process in four cases of major investigations are presented here. This criminal investigation process is analyzed as a process of framing, using Goffman's framing (Goffman, 1975) and interaction theories (Goffman, 1990). It shows that in addition to framing, other substantive and social factors affect the criminal investigation.

Dead Reckoning: Unraveling How “Homicide” Cases Travel From Crime Scene to Court Using Qualitative Research Methods

“…But what informs or guides these narrative constructions? A number of researchers employ Goffman's (1974Goffman's ( /1975 concept of framing to explain how investigators individually and collectively make sense of information that enters the investigation (see Hawk & Dabney, 2014;Innes, 2002;Salet, 2017). Notably, frames and narratives are influenced by investigators' knowledge and experiences, "gut feelings" (Salet, 2017, p. 139), and sociocultural understandings (Costa, 2017).…”

“…Conversely, a fear of social evaluation may lead to hurried sensemaking in a bid to reduce uncertainty. Salet (2017) suggests that because officers attach more significance to forensic evidence, they may overlook alternative lines of inquiry. He also observes how social relationships, social skills, and power and authority can affect how much influence an investigator has during team discussions and whether their ideas are considered.…”

“…Fourth, as an essential part of this sensemaking work, investigators construct local narratives and use generic frames and typifications through which they make sense of information, helping to interpret and define the situation, and organizing future actions and inquiries (Fyfe et al, 2015;Hawk & Dabney, 2014;Innes, 2002Innes, , 2007Salet, 2017). Notably, these narratives, frames, and typifications guide the interpretations of first responding officers and medical practitioners who play a pivotal role in helping to determine whether a homicide has occurred and directing how (or whether) an investigation will proceed.…”

Sensemaking in detective work: The social nature of crime investigation

“…Although these perspectives focused on the organizational landscape surrounding investigations as well as the challenges investigators face in their professional decision-making, there have also been calls to examine criminal investigation from the perspective of detectives’ social worlds (Innes, 2003), viewing police work as a social accomplishment with frequent intra- and interorganizational collaborations (see Manning, 1977; Schaveling et al, 2017; Tong and Bowling, 2006). Salet’s (2017) study of framing in temporary investigation teams employs such a perspective because the author showed how sensemaking and the establishment of consensus regarding various cases are largely related to interactions and social relations within the team. Similarly, Innes and Brookman (2013: 288) described investigative work as dependent on a ‘complex web of negotiations that take place within the team, but also between team members and those from the outside’.…”

“…Framing has accordingly been theorized to include the process by which events are put into context and related to experience and future expectations (Bruner, 1990; Goffman, 1974). When frames are unable to bring order to a situation, a detective acts to develop a plausible explanation (Salet, 2017). Enactment is the process by which individuals strive to make sense, triggering further sensemaking cycles.…”