Doctoral Dissertation Research: Operationalizing

PI和co-PI: N. Dickon Reppucci和Jessica kostelnikvirginia大学题目：博士论文研究：许多研究试图解释虚假供述是如何以及为什么发生的，研究人员已经确定了不同案件的共同特征（包括它们发生的比例不一致的案件类型，如谋杀），以及个人（包括嫌疑人的青少年）和情境（包括审讯者使用欺骗）虚假供述的风险因素。然而，在何种程度上考虑风险因素之间的相互作用，目前尚不清楚：1)执法人员在判断审讯过程中可能使用的技术的精确程度和供词证据的诊断有效性时，以及2)陪审员在判断审讯的强迫性、供词的自愿性和被告的有罪性时。因此，本研究假设执法人员和陪审员在对非严重案件的胁迫性和自愿性进行判断时，可能会考虑嫌疑人的年龄和审讯时间的相互作用，而在严重案件中则会忽略这种相互作用。在目前的研究中，参与者将包括500名社区成员和500名执法人员，他们将被随机分配阅读由3（儿童，青少年，成年嫌疑人）x2（45分钟审讯，12小时审讯）x2（攻击犯罪，谋杀犯罪）析因设计产生的12个条件组中的一个的案例材料。参与者将被要求考虑警方报告中的事实和审讯摘录，就像他们是公民审查委员会的成员一样，以确定调查人员在审讯期间的行为是否恰当。在阅读完案件材料后，参与者将回答一份关于他们对嫌疑人和审讯的看法的问卷。该研究将确定以下关系：1)犯罪的严重性；（二）犯罪嫌疑人的年龄；3)审讯的时长，以及对1)嫌疑人能力的认知；2)讯问胁迫性；3)自告奋勇。此外，由于美国最高法院在亚利桑那诉富米南特案（1991年）中指出，错误承认的虚假供词可以被视为虚假供词？无害的错误呢?，拟议的研究还将研究关于审讯中胁迫程度的判断和供词的自愿性在多大程度上与对嫌疑人/被告的判断有关。内疚。该研究还将调查社区成员和执法人员之间反应模式的群体差异。结果将对以下方面产生影响：1)为开展青少年审讯的执法培训的协同发展提供信息；2)解释风险因素如何在？总体情况法？3)检验亚利桑那诉富米南特案（Arizona v. Fulminante, 1991）判决中的假设。

PI and co-PI: N. Dickon Reppucci and Jessica KostelnikUniversity of VirginaTitle: Doctoral Dissertation Research: OperationalizingProject Abstract0819460Much research has attempted to explain how and why false confession occur, and researchers have identified common characteristics across cases (including types of cases in which they disproportionably occur, such as murder), as well as personal (including youth of suspect) and situational (including use of deceit by interrogator) risk factors for false confessions. However, the extent to which the interaction between risk factors is considered 1) by law enforcement officers when making judgments about the surgical precision of techniques one might use during an interrogation and the diagnostic validity of confession evidence, and 2) by jurors when making judgments about the coerciveness of an interrogation, the voluntariness of a confession and the guilt of a defendant, is unclear. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that law enforcement officers and jurors might consider the interaction between the age of the suspect and the length of the interrogation when making judgments about coerciveness and voluntariness in non-severe cases, but disregard this interaction in severe cases. For the current study, participants will include 500 community members and 500 law enforcement officers who will be randomly assigned to reading case materials from 1 of 12 condition groups produced by a 3 (child, youth, adult suspect) x 2 (45 minute interrogation, 12 hour interrogation) x 2 (assault offense, murder offense) factorial design. Participants will be instructed to consider facts from a police report and excerpts from an interrogation as though they were serving on a Citizens Review Board to determine whether the investigator acted appropriately during the interrogation. After reading the case materials, participants will respond to a questionnaire regarding their perceptions of the suspect and the interrogation. The study will identify relationships between 1) the severity of the crime; 2) the age of the suspect; and 3) the length of the interrogation, and perceptions of 1) suspect competencies; 2) interrogation coerciveness; and 3) confession voluntariness. In addition, because the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) that an erroneously admitted false confession can be considered ?harmless error?, the proposed study will also examine the extent to which judgments about the level of coercion in an interrogation and voluntariness of a confession are related to judgments about the suspect/defendant?s guilt. The study will also investigate group differences in patterns of responses between community members and law enforcement officers. Results will have implications for 1) informing the collaborative development of law enforcement training for conducting juvenile interrogations, 2) explicating how risk factors are weighted within the ?totality of the circumstances approach? to the admissibility of confession evidence, and 3) testing assumptions made in the Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) decision.