Abstract
ObjectivesWhen it comes to interviewing suspected terrorists, global evidence points to harsh interrogation procedures, despite the likelihood of false positives. How can the state maintain an effective counterterrorism policy while simultaneously protecting civil rights? Until now, the shroud of secrecy of “national security” practices has thwarted attempts by researchers to test apparatuses that engender fair interrogation procedures. The present study aims to test one approach: the use of a “procedural justice checklist” (PJ Checklist) in interviews of suspected terrorists by counterterrorism police officers in port settings.MethodsUsing a clustered randomized controlled field test in a European democracy, we measure the effect of implementing Procedural Justice (PJ) Checklists in counterterrorism police settings. With 65 teams of officers randomly-assigned into treatment and control conditions, we compare post-interrogation surveys of suspects (n = 1418) on perceptions of legitimacy; obligations to obey the law; willingness to cooperate with the police; effectiveness of counterterrorism measures; distributive justice; feelings of social resistance to the state; and PJ. A series of multi-level linear, logistic, and ordered logit regression models are used to estimate the treatment effect, with Hedges’ g and odds ratios used for effect sizes.ResultsWhen compared with control conditions, implementing a policy of PJ Checklist causes statistically significant and large enhancement in all measured dimensions, including the willingness of suspects to obey the law (g = 1.022 [0.905, 1.138]), to cooperate with the police (g = 1.118 [0.999, 1.238]), distributive justice (g = 0.993 [0.880, 1.106]), effectiveness (g = 1.077 [0.959, 1.195]), procedural justice (g = 1.044 [0.930, 1.158]), and feelings of resistance towards the state (g = − 0.370 [− 0.259, − 0.482]).ConclusionsPJ checklists offer a simple, scalable means of improving how state agents interact with terrorism suspects. The police can use what is evidently a cost-effective tool to enhance legitimacy and cooperation with the police, even in a counterterrorism environment.
Highlights
We present the results of the first national test of one type of intervention: a prospective experiment in which counterterrorism officers were tasked with applying a procedural justice checklist during their engagement with suspected terrorists
We were interested in studies of counterterrorism powers that allow the police to operate with broad and intrusive powers to stop, search, and hold individuals suspected of being terrorists, as these powers are at the heart of potential human rights violations (Heath-Kelly 2012; Moran 2005)
There are noticeable differences between treatment and control clusters, all in the hypothesized direction: The application of a Procedural Justice (PJ) Checklist led to higher scores on the scales for procedural justice, distributive justice, effectiveness, feelings of obligation to obey the law, willingness to cooperate with the police, and lower scores for social resistance
Summary
When it comes to interviewing suspected terrorists, global evidence points to harsh interrogation procedures, despite the likelihood of false positives. How can the state maintain an effective counterterrorism policy while simultaneously protecting civil rights? The shroud of secrecy of “national security” practices has thwarted attempts by researchers to test apparatuses that engender fair interrogation procedures. The present study aims to test one approach: the use of a “procedural justice checklist” (PJ Checklist) in interviews of suspected terrorists by counterterrorism police officers in port settings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
