Police interrogation practice in Slovenia

Abstract

Interrogation techniques are well explored, but in Slovenia it has\ud remained unknown what interrogation techniques are used and\ud what the basic characteristics of suspect interrogations are. The\ud Slovenian interrogation manual proposes some coercive\ud interrogation techniques and neglects their weaknesses. The aim\ud of the current study was to examine Slovenian police officers’\ud beliefs as to the basic characteristics of their interrogations and\ud whether techniques proposed by the manual are used in practice\ud to begin to provide some insight into what actually happens in\ud such interrogations. A survey instrument was used to obtain selfreport\ud data from a sample of criminal investigators. From 86\ud completed questionnaires it was found that a typical interrogation\ud of a suspect lasts around 90 minutes and is not recorded.\ud Interviewers typically use three interrogation techniques namely (i)\ud conducting interrogations in isolation; (ii) identifying contradictions\ud in the suspect’s story; and (iii) confronting the suspect with\ud evidence. Findings suggest that some coercive interrogation\ud techniques are used in practice (e.g. offering moral justifications,\ud alluding to have evidence of guilt, good cop/bad cop routine, and\ud minimization). The study is the first insight into the practices of\ud Slovenian investigators when questioning suspects. Differences\ud among general, white-collar and organized crime investigators are\ud also discussed

Policijska zaslišanja skozi prizmo znanosti

“…In discussing the differences between the coercive interrogation approach and the information-gathering approach, the interrogation model used in Slovenia deserves some attention. It seems that it could not be characterized as completely coercive, yet certain techniques employed are typical of the coercive approach (Areh et al, 2015). When Slovenia was part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, coercive interrogation techniques were well known as some were recommended for interrogation of suspects (Areh, Zgaga, & Flander, 2016).…”

“…A suspect interview in Slovenia normally lasts 90 minutes and is not recorded (Areh et al, 2015)-the latter fact being especially worrying as there is no reliable insight into what exactly happens during an interrogation. Besides, interviewers cannot learn from the feedback provided (Sullivan, 2004).…”

“…The issue of false confessions has been relatively well researched, and several types have been identified, including: voluntary false confessions (an innocent suspect voluntarily admits to a crime), coerced-compliant false confessions (a suspect falsely confesses to avoid pressure and punishment or to receive a benefit or reward), and coerced-internalized false confessions (an innocent suspect confesses under pressure and comes to believe that they indeed committed the crime) (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985). One of the main reasons for extracting false confessions is a strong bias on the part of the investigators who are mainly convinced of the suspect's guilt (Areh, Walsh, & Bull, 2015;Meissner & Kassin, 2002). This conviction leads to what is known as the 'confirmation bias', which means that investigators unwillingly consider only the evidence consistent with their expectations and ignore, exclude, or reinterpret the disconfirming evidence (Nickerson, 1998).…”

Interview Expectancies: Awareness of potential biases influences behaviour in interviewees

“…When this occurs, previous research has demonstrated that in a confession driven investigative interview scenario, the interviewing officer may then increase interrogative pressure, and engage in more coercive tactics (Kassin et al, 2009;Kassin et al, 2003;Kassin et al, 2007). Although the extant literature has encouraged law enforcement agencies to move away from coercive interview tactics (Kassin et al, 2009), the application of interrogative pressure to obtain a confession is still common practice in many countries (Areh, Walsh, & Bull, 2016;Kassin et al, 2007). Given the high-pressure and high-stakes nature of the investigative interview, it is easy to imagine how cognitive load could have an adverse effect on the interviewee's performance.…”

Quality of written record following mock eyewitness testimony: Note taking should be a minimum standard!

“…Moreover, interviews of significant witnesses in murder cases are usually audio‐taped in the UK (Wolchover & Heaton‐Armstrong, ). In Slovenia, standards for documenting eyewitness statements are comparably low because not even suspect interrogations are recorded (Areh, Walsh, & Bull, ).…”