Video-recorded Interrogations: Beyond Camera Perspective

摘要过去20年来曝光的许多错误定罪都源于刑事调查的审讯阶段，在这一阶段，有时会从被拘留的犯罪嫌疑人那里获取逼供或虚假供词。为帮助防止这一特殊问题，已被广泛推荐的一个解决方案是对整个拘留审讯进行录像。这样的程序修改确实有可能改善司法工作；然而，谨慎需要仔细考虑其可能的陷阱。在基础心理学的指导下，G·丹尼尔·拉西特博士进行了长达25年的系统研究，并以最著名的关于虚幻因果关系的文献为指导，从经验上证明了录像审讯中普遍存在的摄像机视角偏差。也就是说，摄像机将观察者的视觉注意力指向嫌疑人(而不是审讯者，或者同样地指向嫌疑人和审讯者)的视频往往会对嫌疑人产生更具偏见的评价，他们的陈述被评估为更自愿，他们更有可能被判有罪，他们会收到更严厉的判刑建议。重要的是，拉西特博士的研究项目还证明了与视频记录相关的优势；例如，如果摄像机拍摄的是等焦视角，则可以向事实调查者提供更详细的审讯记录，而不会引入偏见或影响准确的评估。尽管摄像机视角显然是任何旨在保护无辜者的视频录制政策都应该解决的重要问题，但不幸的是，这并不是行为科学文献提出的唯一关切。这项拟议的研究借鉴了心理科学的四个额外领域，以进一步得出录像审讯的潜在局限性。计划进行一系列实验，以1)确定这些假设的限制可能在多大程度上有害地影响对录像审讯的实际事实调查者的评估，以及2)评估成功对抗这些限制的可能策略。最初的一组研究调查了这样一种可能性，即在某些情况下，即使是同等聚焦的视频录制，也可能无法完全保护少数族裔嫌疑人，这是因为拉西特博士和他的同事们所说的种族突出偏见。第二组审查辩方必须克服的潜在判断毅力，以允许事实调查员正确地重新解释视频审讯，根据审判惯例，检方有机会首先将其定性为确定被告有罪。第三组关注的是事实调查员可能犯的来源监控错误，这些错误可能会阻碍他们准确得出结论，即视频供词叙述实际上被警方在审讯早些时候提供的信息污染了。最后一组利用识解水平理论来测试，在观看视频审讯之前，诱导抽象(高)或具体(低)水平的心理识解是否有助于更准确地评估供词的可靠性。拟议中的工作还将为法律从业者和政策制定者提供明确的基于研究的指导方针，进一步提高录像改革履行其承诺的可能性，将无辜的人因审讯诱导的虚假供词而被定罪的可能性降至最低。在拉西特博士之前资助的NSF项目中，几名研究生和本科生能够第一手了解基本心理学理论和研究如何引发科学调查，这些调查对司法系统乃至整个社会都具有相当重要的实践意义。同样，拟议的工作将使新一代学生和未来的学者接触到计划性研究议程的所有阶段，该议程同时具有高度的科学严谨性和直接的现实适用性。

AbstractMany of the wrongful convictions that have been brought to light over the last two decades have their roots in the interrogation phase of criminal investigations where coerced or false confessions are sometimes extracted from detained crime suspects. A solution that has been widely recommended to help prevent this particular problem is to video record custodial interrogations in their entirety. Such a procedural modification indeed has the potential to improve the administration of justice; however, prudence calls for careful consideration of its possible pitfalls. Guided by basic psychological science, most notably the literature on illusory causation, Dr. G. Daniel Lassiter's more than 25 years of systematic investigation has empirically documented the existence of what is now commonly known as the camera perspective bias in video-recorded interrogations. That is, videos in which the camera directs observers visual attention onto suspects (rather than onto interrogators or equally onto suspects and interrogators) tend to produce more prejudicial evaluations of suspects, their statements are assessed as more voluntary, they are more likely to be judged guilty, and they receive more severe sentence recommendations. Importantly, Dr. Lassiter's research program also demonstrated that the advantages associated with video recording; for example, a more detailed record of the interrogation is provided to fact finders without introducing bias or undermining accurate assessments if an equal-focus perspective is taken by the video camera. Although it is clear that camera perspective is an important issue that any video-recording policy designed to protect the innocent should address, it is unfortunately not the only concern suggested by the behavioral science literature. The proposed research draws on four additional areas of psychological science to derive further potential limitations of video-recorded interrogations. A series of experiments are planned that will 1) determine the extent to which these hypothesized limitations would likely detrimentally influence actual fact finder evaluations of video-recorded interrogations, and 2) evaluate possible strategies for successfully counteracting them. An initial set of studies investigates the possibility that even an equal-focus video recording in certain circumstances may not fully protect minority suspects, due to what Dr. Lassiter and colleagues call a racial salience bias. A second set examines the potential judgment perseverance the defense must overcome to permit fact finders to correctly reinterpret a video interrogation that the prosecution, by virtue of trial convention, has the opportunity to first characterize as establishing a defendant's guilt. A third set focuses on the source monitoring errors fact finders may commit that could impede their ability to accurately conclude that a video-recorded confession narrative was actually contaminated by information provided by police earlier in the interrogation. A final set draws on construal level theory to test whether inducing an abstract (high) or concrete (low) level of mental construal prior to viewing video-recorded interrogations promotes more accurate assessments of a confession's reliability. The proposed work will also yield clear research-based guidelines for legal practitioners and policy makers that will further improve the likelihood that the video-recording reform will fulfill its promise to minimize the possibility that an innocent person will be convicted based on an interrogation-induced false confession. In Dr. Lassiter's previously funded NSF projects, several graduate and undergraduate students were able to learn firsthand how basic psychological theory and research can give rise to scientific investigations that are of considerable practical import to the justice system and thus society more generally. Similarly, the proposed work will expose a new generation of students and future scholars to all phases of a programmatic research agenda that is simultaneously high in scientific rigor and immediate real-world applicability.