Evidence-based policing in Australia: an examination of the appropriateness and transparency of lineup identification and investigative interviewing practices

Author:

Cullen Hayley J.1,Adam Lisanne2,van Golde Celine3

Affiliation:

1. School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia; School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Australia

2. Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Australia; School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia

3. School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract

Psychological research has been pivotal in influencing the way police forces globally approach and undertake criminal investigations. Increasing psychological research in recent years has led to the development of best-practice guidelines for conducting police investigations, across a number of key areas of criminal investigation. For example, procedures for creating and conducting lineups as recommended by the American Psychology-Law Society, and the UK-developed PEACE model for investigative interviewing, have both been of influence in Australia. However, the extent to which these evidence-based recommendations have been incorporated into policing practice within Australia is unclear. In this article, we conducted an exploratory review of publicly available policing documents within Australian states and territories, to determine the extent to which best practice lineup identification and investigative interviewing procedures have been adopted into police practice. The review revealed that for lineup identification procedures, many of the basic recommendations for conducting lineups were not incorporated into publicly available policing manuals. For investigative interviewing, it appeared on the surface that elements of the PEACE model were implemented within most Australian jurisdictions, albeit this was often not explicitly stated within policing documents. A key issue identified was a lack of (understandable) public transparency of policing procedure, as a number of Australian jurisdictions failed to have publicly available policing manuals or handbooks against which to evaluate their procedures. Therefore, we argue that there is a need for better collaboration between researchers and law enforcement in order to achieve evidence-based, transparent policing within Australia.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Law

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3