Pretrial Interviews Research Articles

CO-Minor-IN/QUEST Improving interpreter-mediated pre-trial interviews with minors

The CO-Minor-IN/QUEST research project (JUST/2011/JPEN/AG/2961, January 2013 – December 2014) studied the interactional dynamics of interpreter-mediated child interviews during the pre-trial phase in criminal procedures. This automatically involves communication with vulnerable interviewees who need extra support for three main reasons: their age (i.e. under 18), native language and procedural status (as a victim, witness or suspect). An on-line questionnaire, originally distributed in six EU Member States enabled the researchers to map the existing expertise, beliefs and needs of the main actors in the field of pre-trial child interviewing meaning interpreters, police and justice, and child support professionals. In this contribution, we will focus on ImQM (interpreter-mediated questioning of minors) in Belgium through the quantitative analysis of several statements on the role of the interpreter. The narratives then allow for a qualitative analysis to underpin the quantitative results, and paint a more complete picture of the needs in ImQM. Just like an interdisciplinary approach is central to research, teamwork is the keyword in daily ImQM practice.

Japanese Suspect Interviews, Confessions, and Related Factors

Two hundred and ninety-one new adult male inmates convicted of murder, robbery, arson, rape, forcible indecency, and kidnapping completed questionnaires about their pretrial interviews. Logistic regression analyses revealed that marital status, feelings of guilt, and perceptions of the strength of the evidence significantly affected the likelihood of confession by those who had already decided to confess prior to interview. By contrast, prior arrest history and interview style affected the likelihood of confession by those who had not previously decided to confess. Suspects who had no previous arrests and had undergone either Undifferentiated-high or Relationship-focused interviews were more likely to make full confessions. In Undifferentiated-high interviews, police officers employed all of the interviewing techniques examined: they listened closely to the suspects’ accounts, attempted to build good relationships, and discussed the crimes, while also presenting evidence and confronting the suspects. In Relationship-focused interviews, police officers listened attentively to the offenders’ accounts, tried to build good relationships, and discussed the crimes directly. Prisoners who experienced Relationship-focused interviews felt satisfied with their confessions and admitted guilt at trial.

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

Background:Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings.Methods:Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics.Results:There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of −7.2, 95% confidence interval: −19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews.Interpretation:Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

The Jamaican Creole speaker in the UK justice system

This article explores intelligibility between the Jamaican vernacular, an English-based lexicon Creole language, and English. It examines discourse in pre-trial interviews conducted by functionaries in the UK criminal justice system, usually police and customs officers and lawyers, with Jamaican Creole (JC)-dominant or monolingual speakers who are typically persons suspected or accused of offences or potential witnesses of offences. Using discourse analysis techniques, it highlights instances of miscommunication and lack of comprehension not only between the parties to the interview, but also on the part of the transcribers. The analysis attempts to trace the miscommunication and lack of understanding to linguistic distinctions between the two language varieties. The paper also explores the possible legal consequences of these language-related miscommunications or lack of communication. The analysis underscores the need for continuous interpretation during pre-trial interviews and for interpretation/translation services at the transcription stage despite some similarity between the two languages.

Helping Children Tell What Happened: A Follow-Up Study of the Narrative Elaboration Procedure

In cases of child maltreatment, children are required to recount past experiences in pretrial interviews, courtroom examination, and abuse-focused therapy. Yet their descriptions are often insufficient for risk assessment, legal decision making, and treatment planning. In the present study, we test whether a new procedure—narrative elaboration—facilitates children's recall without jeopardizing accuracy. Thirty-three second graders participated in a classroom activity. Two weeks later, they were randomly assigned to participate in one of two preparation sessions before being interviewed about the classroom activity: (a) narrative elaboration intervention or (b) control session. The interviewer was an unfamiliar authority figure. The interview entailed free recall (e.g., “What happened?”), cued recall (i.e., an opportunity to elaborate on free recall with visual cues), and follow-up questions. On the cued recall task, children prepared with the narrative elaboration procedure reported significantly more correct information than children in the control group. Performance was improved without increasing error or reducing correct responses to follow-up questions. The implications of these results for questioning suspected child abuse victims are discussed.

Supervised Pretrial Release: Policy Issues That Must Be Explored to Create Appropriate Programs

This article examines some policy concerns associated with implementing supervised pretrial release programs that have the least restrictive conditions necessary to protect the community and ensure defendants do not flee before trial. Responding to a literature critiquing traditional pretrial treatment of defendants, jurisdictions have augmented the standard bail/no bail dichotomy to allow release under supervision. Critics argue that this innovation can lead to net widening (forcing supervision on defendants who might have made release-on-recognizance in the original system), overintrusive monitoring, loss of confidentiality of information secured from defendants in intense pretrial interviews, and an overextensive role for relatively unaccountable private organizations in the supervision process. Analyzing these concerns is a prerequisite for structuring programs with minimal problems.