Police Investigations and the Systems Framework of Wrongful Conviction
Introduction to Week Three and Acknowledgments
The course convener and designer is Dr. Rachel Drosophila.
The specific course code is 3037 CCJ, and the course title is Wrongfully Convicted.
Week three focuses specifically on the police investigation, which marks the start of the criminal justice process.
Acknowledgment of the traditional custodians of the land: The speaker acknowledges the younger and terrible people and pays respect to their elders, past and present.
Respect is extended to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people listening to the lecture.
Overview of Known Causes of Wrongful Conviction
Wrongful convictions often originate during the police investigation phase, setting the case on a negative trajectory.
Tunnel Vision: This occurs when police focus exclusively on one particular suspect, ignoring other potential suspects or alternative theories of the crime.
Eyewitness Misidentification: Accounts provided by witnesses are often incorrect; the methods used by police to collect these accounts can contribute to errors.
Forensic Evidence Issues:
Analysis of forensic evidence can be erroneous.
Conclusions reached by forensic examiners can be misleading.
This is especially critical in serious offenses like homicides where such evidence is commonly used.
False Confessions and Untrue Admissions: These typically occur during police interviews, often starting when witnesses are later repositioned as suspects.
Race and Personal Bias: The race of the suspect or defendant can impact the investigation, especially when police hold personal biases or when there are cultural and language barriers.
The Systems Framework for Wrongful Conviction
Definition of Systems Theory: When applied to criminal justice, it examines how different components interact and contribute to mistakes.
Interconnected Network: The system is viewed as a web where a flaw in one area (e.g., investigative procedure) impacts the entire structure.
Components Analyzed: The framework assesses investigative procedures, prosecutorial conduct, the quality of legal defense, and forensic methods.
Wrongful Convictions as Systemic Errors:
They are not anomalies or independent events.
They result from a culmination of decisions and events occurring at various stages by different actors.
A wrongful conviction is essentially a breakdown of the system because it reflects a failure in the processes meant to detect and prevent errors.
Collecting and Processing Physical Evidence
General Acceptance: Courts and police usually accept forensic science results routinely, and most forensic evidence is admitted.
Complexity and Jury Understanding: Juries often struggle to comprehend complex evidence like DNA analysis, which involves complicated statistics.
Fragmentation of Forensic Disciplines:
There is a lack of uniform standards across different fields.
DNA analysis is highly regulated, following strict protocols and rigorous validation based on the scientific method.
Disciplines such as hair comparison or bite mark analysis are less standardized and more subjective to the individual practitioner.
Agency Communication Breakdowns:
Forensic laboratories may fail to share results promptly with investigators.
Critical information regarding evidence handling might not be effectively communicated between police and prosecutors.
Source Errors: Police collect evidence from multiple sources. Any error in the initial collection or within the information gained can be incorporated into the permanent case file, affecting the final outcome.
The Role of the Crime Scene and Forensic Laboratories
Crime Scene Examination:
The value and integrity of forensic evidence depend heavily on the initial collection.
Evidence is utilized by police, forensic labs, coroners, and courts.
There is significant variation in the ability of crime scene examiners; some outperform others in attention to detail and quality of work.
Ineffective processing at the crime scene has "flow-on effects," preventing the production of valuable evidence needed to solve the case.
Forensic Laboratory Issues:
Cross-contamination: Accidental mixing of evidence from different cases can create false links.
Confirmation Bias: Forensic scientists may interpret data to support the preconceived notions or expectations of police investigators.
Backlogs: Delays in analysis can hinder the timely resolution of criminal cases.
Over-dependence: Investigators sometimes rely too heavily on lab results to confirm or eliminate suspects, which is dangerous if methods are flawed.
The Myth of Infallibility: Legal professionals and juries often place undue trust in forensic science, ignoring its limitations and potential for error.
Police Interview Procedures and Documentation
Selective Documentation: Investigators decide which lines of inquiry to pursue, but the documentation of this decision-making process is often selective, potentially omitting crucial details.
Transcription Risks: Interviews are often transcribed into written statements. This process introduces human memory fallibility and the risk of confirmation bias, where investigators only seek info that confirms their hypotheses.
Leading Questions: Investigators may ask questions that suggest a specific answer. Because these questions are rarely recorded in the final written statements, they cannot be scrutinized for bias.
Transparency Gaps:
Documentation of decision-making identifies why certain choices were made.
Non-homicide cases often lack thorough documentation, leading to low accountability.
Homicide investigations are generally better documented due to the high stakes and severity, providing a more comprehensive record.
Impact on Knowledge: Our understanding of wrongful convictions is restricted by the limited information available in investigative records.
Eyewitness Identification Reform
Prevalence: It is a leading cause of wrongful convictions in the United States and has also occurred in Australia.
Legislative Status: Australia currently lacks universal legislation regulating the methods of collecting eyewitness identifications to minimize errors.
Research-Based Solutions (Experimental Psychology):
Blind Administration: The person running the lineup should not know who the suspect is.
Instruction: The witness must be told the suspect might not be in the lineup to ensure they do not feel forced to pick someone.
Foil Selection: All members of the lineup (foils) should match the witness's verbal description and look similar to each other so no one stands out.
Confidence Statements: The eyewitness's level of confidence should be recorded immediately after identification. Changes in confidence over time should be monitored, as external information can influence memory.
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups:
Simultaneous Lineups: Witnesses see everyone at once, leading to "relative judgment" (comparing people to each other).
Sequential Lineups: Witnesses see members one at a time and decide on each before moving to the next. This reduces relative judgment and is considered superior.
Video Recording: All identifications should be video recorded to ensure transparency and compliance.
Confessions and Interrogation Techniques
False Confessions: These are a frequent factor in wrongful convictions globally, including Australia.
The Reid Technique (Common in the USA):
Aggressive nature that facilitates a higher number of false confessions.
Component 1: Custody and Isolation (creating a stressful environment).
Component 2: Confrontation (directly accusing the suspect).
Component 3: Minimization (downplaying the crime's severity to suggest confessing is in the suspect's best interest).
The PEACE Approach (Common in the UK):
Emphasizes fairness and truth-seeking rather than coercion.
Focuses on building rapport, using open-ended questions, and active listening.
Interviews are recorded for transparency.
Designed to be non-confrontational and compliant with legal/ethical rights, minimizing the risk of false confessions.
Summary and Conclusions
Police investigations must be highly documented because they are the foundation of the justice process.
The process involves multiple points where bias and error can occur among investigators, agencies, and witnesses.
Error Propagation: If mistakes (like those in high-profile cases under political pressure) are not caught during the investigation, they move to the prosecution.
Prosecutorial Reliance: Prosecutors usually rely on the investigation data. Without contradictory evidence, there is no reliable way to distinguish correct accounts from erroneous ones.
Requirements for Reform: Investigative processes must be informed by research, require significant documentation, maintain transparency, and have checks on compliance to ensure accountability.