CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS WITH JUVENILE VICTIMS AND/OR EYE WITNESSES: TECHNIQUES USED BY POLICE OFFICERS, PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES IN NORTHERN ITALY *

Maria Grazia Calzolari
Istituto di Ricerca sui Sistemi Giudiziari C.N.R., Bologna

The results of the research presented here explore for the first time such questions as: how judicial police officers, juvenile public prosecutors and judges conduct interviews with juvenile victims and/or juvenile eye witnesses¹(very frequently in cases of child abuse they play both roles). What difficulties must they face? What methods do they utilize to verify the credibility and the truthfulness of their testimonies? What specialized training in interview techniques is provided to these professionals? Could an expert’s intervention effectively contribute both to improve the quality of the information gathered and to protect the minor?

These questions and others were asked to the components of the juvenile justice system, i.e. judges, prosecutors and police officers who in Italy operate in each juvenile prosecution office collaborating in the investigations (directed by the prosecutors). The survey was carried out by means of a questionnaire distributed in three northern Italian cities (Milan, Venice and Bologna) to the entire universe composing the three groups. Both types of judges participating in the first stages of the criminal process, i.e. judges of the preliminary investigation and judges of the preliminary hearing, were asked to complete the questionnaire.

While the issue discussed here has not been previously studied in Italy, in other European countries and in the United States many researches over the last two decades have focused on the conditions and strategies with which to optimize information retrieval in interviews with victims and/or eye witnesses of crimes. To a large extent these studies have centered on cognitive and interpersonal characteristics of adolescents and have resulted in the revision and adaptation of two techniques for the interrogation of minors: the cognitive interview (CI), initially developed in 1984 by Ed Geiselman and Ron Fisher, and the structured interview (SI), proposed by Amina Memon and her collaborators at the beginning of the nineties (Memon et al., 1998).

The theoretical perspective of CI derives from studies carried out in the two fields of cognitive and social psychology. In particular, the cognitive components of CI draw upon studies regarding the way memory works, while its social components refer to knowledge regarding how best to manage a social interaction and improve communication between an interviewer and interviewee. The SI does not imply cognitive strategies, drawing only upon the social components and communication strategies (Cavedon, Calzolari, 1999).

Furthermore, the interrogation of minors as eye witnesses and/or victims of crime has as one of its aims that of ascertaining whether testimonies are true or false. To this end Udo Undeutsch (1982) developed in Germany toward the end of the fifties a highly valid instrument to evaluate the credibility of minors’ statements, the Statement Validity Checklist (SVA).². Among the aims of the present research was that of determining whether these techniques were known by the judicial police and magistrates (judeges and public prosecutors).

Tab. 1: Questionnaires distributed and returned, by city and professional group.

Tab. 2: Age and gender of the subjects by professional group.

The questionnaire was adapted from that used in a previous research carried out by one of the authors of this paper which aimed to explore the interview methods used by police officers with adult eye witnesses.³. The researchers distributed the present questionnaire to the 47 subjects comprising the universe under study, and explained to each one individually the research aims and procedures for completing the form. The subjects had the choice of completing the questionnaire in the presence of the researcher, or doing it alone and returning it later. The number of respondents was quite high: 39 subjects (83%), including 25 male and 14 female, aged between 30 and 59 (Tables 1 and 2).

The city showing the highest response rate was Venice; the lowest, Bologna (Table 1). In fact, while overall only 1/6 of the universe did not complete the questionnaire, in Bologna this proportion grows to 1/3 (five out of fifteen potential subjects): only five out of eight police officers and only one judge out of three returned the questionnaire. The three professional groups also showed different degrees of collaboration: all the prosecutors answered, as well as a large majority of police officers (20 out of 24), but only six out of ten judges responded.

Analysis of the results reveals that with respect to specific training for interrogation, 35 out of 39 subjects (90%) have never followed courses on techniques for the interrogation of minors, and 34 (87%) have never received written instructions on how to conduct an interview. Surprisingly, however, more than half of the subjects (23) state that they consider themselves competent to interview minors, though – perhaps in a slightly contradictory manner – they also state that they feel “the need for the intervention of an expert in the field of interviewing and the memory of minors, who might indicate useful methods” (17 subjects felt this need “often” and four subjects “always”). It appears clear that the ability to interview minors, even in delicate cases like those of abuse, is left almost exclusively to the experience and the sensitivity of individuals, since newcomers mainly learn from older members through traditional apprenticeship.

Notwithstanding the fact that the subjects had not received any specific training in conducting interrogations, they do seem particularly competent in the methods used. Their answers reveal in fact that they make use of techniques suggested by the psychological research results and included in the CI and SI. In particular, 32 subjects (82%) reported that they begin the interview by soliciting a free recall of the minors (only 13% ask specific questions), and 28 subjects (71%) reported that they continue with open questions (23% with both open and specific questions). Further, 33 subjects (85%) tell the minors before the interrogation begins that they may answer “I don’t know” if they do not know the answer to certain questions, and 30 subjects (76%) specify - especially when the minor is very young - that if a question is asked more than once it does not necessarily mean that the previous answer was wrong.⁴

The principal difficulties encountered by our subjects regard above all social skills and interaction in the interviewing of children and adolescents. In fact, the phase of establishing rapport with the minor is indicated as the most difficult in the interview (mentioned by 19 subjects, almost half of the total). Perhaps it is precisely because of this difficulty that in the questions regarding the subjects’ attitude and evaluation of the interrogation, the majority (25 subjects) state that their ability to establish a good relationship with the minor is the most satisfying aspect of the interview. This sensitivity on the part of the interrogator in attempting to construct a good rapport, trying above all not to create possible traumas in the young people, emerges also from questions regarding methods used in conducting interviews. In fact, before beginning the interrogation almost all the subjects (95%) state that they use techniques to calm the child and gain his or her confidence. These methods consist predominantly in the choice of topics of conversation which are not strictly related to the subject of the interview but which might be of interest to the child or adolescent, such as school, friends, etc. (25 subjects). Also, 17 subjects engage in various behaviors which put the minor at ease (Table 3).

Tab. 3: Distribution by professional group and city of the principal categories of answers to the question: “What methods do you use, at the beginning of the interrogation, to calm the child and establish a good interpersonal relationship?”

Although to a somewhat lesser degree, some subjects stressed that in their opinion it is advisable to adopt a relaxed, calm and confidential attitude which allows the minors to feel that they are in a serene environment where they may speak easily and without fear.

It is interesting to note that the CI and SI techniques are very little known - only seven out of 39 subjects answered positively, and the SVA and CBCA validation techniques are even less known (only five subjects answered positively). Without a doubt the most “knowledgeable” city was Venice: four subjects out of seven are familiar with the CI and SI and four out of five are familiar with the validation techniques (Table 4). However, it should be noted that none of the subjects in any of the cities actually use these or other structured or standardized methods (similar to the SVA and CBCA) in order to verify the truth or falsehood of the statements made by minors in the course of the interrogations.

Tab. 4: Answers to the questions: “Are you familiar with IC and IS?” and “Are you familiar with SVA and CBCA?” by professional group and city.

It is interesting that the social and affective component, in addition to being the principal element common to CI and SI, is also the aspect which creates greatest difficulties for the interrogator. It is clear therefore that teaching these techniques for information retrieval would be highly useful insofar as it would alleviate precisely the relational difficulties encountered by the majority of the subjects, while also providing important assistance, from a cognitive point of view, for a greater retrieval of information.

During the course of the data collection important information regarding practices adopted in the various cities emerged from informal communication with our subjects. In Milan, for example, when minors are very young and the cases are very delicate, there is a tendency to delegate the interviews to the social services and other experts, usually psychologists. Also in Bologna experts are called upon in particularly serious and delicate cases, although - according to information gathered from the magistrates - minors are conventionally interviewed by the police officers. Three out of eight police officers, however, maintained that they never interrogate minors, and since precisely these three police officers did not complete the questionnaire (because indeed they never interviewed minors), perhaps in Bologna magistrates delegate interrogation of minors to only certain police officers.

While there emerges therefore a general tendency in all three cities to utilize expert help for interviewing minors in difficult and complex cases, the widespread lack of specific training in this field on the part of the police is quite troubling, for it is the police officers who are charged with gathering initial information and writing up the report of the facts before the case is transmitted to the prosecutor. It would seem to us that in a workplace where the protagonists are minors - whatever relationship is created between interviewer and interviewee, and whoever it may be that actually interrogates the minors - police officers should in any case be provided some minimal information regarding the characteristics and principal psychological features of children and adolescents. In other words, no matter who interrogates the minor, a specific preparation in this sector would appear to be essential for police officers, who are necessarily the first persons to interview and interact with children and juveniles.

In conclusion, the survey has provided a general overview of the field and some initial data regarding this important and delicate area of the juvenile justice system, until now totally unexplored by research in Italy. The results suggest the advisability of widening the investigation to other juvenile courts and prosecution offices in order to uncover possible general tendencies and to explore more deeply critical factors and problems in interviews with children and juveniles, victims and/or eye-witnesses of crime.

* La ricerca qui presentata è stata diretta dalla Dr. Anna Mestitz ed è stata svolta presso l'Istituto di Ricerca sui Sistemi Giudiziari del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Bologna)

References

CAVEDON A., CALZOLARI M.G.(1999), Interrogare il testimone: tecniche di interrogatorio a confronto, in Rivista di Psicologia Giuridica, n. I/II., 23-34.

MEMON A., VRIJ A., BULL R.(1998), Psychology and law: truthfulness, accuracy and credibility, Mc Graw-Hill, London.

UNDEUTSCH U.(1982), Statement Reality Analisys, in A. TRANKELL (ed.), Reconstructing the past: the role of psychologists in criminal trials, Kluwer, Deventer, 27-56