‘Show me what happened’: Low technology communication aids used in intermediary mediated police investigative interviews with vulnerable witnesses with an intellectual disability

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW International Journal of Evidence & Proof Pub Date : 2022-12-27 DOI:10.1177/13657127221140469
Tina Pereira, M. Aldridge
{"title":"‘Show me what happened’: Low technology communication aids used in intermediary mediated police investigative interviews with vulnerable witnesses with an intellectual disability","authors":"Tina Pereira, M. Aldridge","doi":"10.1177/13657127221140469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the manner in which two types of communication aids (wooden mannequins and line drawings) that are selected, introduced and managed in real intermediary-mediated police investigative interviews, improve the quality of evidence with vulnerable witnesses and victims with an intellectual disability. Multimodality interactional work carried out by the interviewing police officer, an intermediary and the vulnerable witness with limited verbal abilities to answer the open question, ‘What happened?’ is analysed. We demonstrate that low technology communication aids can successfully be utilised to elicit the same type of information from those with limited verbal abilities, as the verbal open question ‘What happened?’, in an unrehearsed and unbiased manner. Aids used in this manner retain the functionality of open questions while reducing their linguistic complexity. This validates the importance of adopting special measures such as the involvement of an intermediary and communication aids in investigative interviews to promote equal opportunities and a fair trial for all.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"83 - 104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221140469","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the manner in which two types of communication aids (wooden mannequins and line drawings) that are selected, introduced and managed in real intermediary-mediated police investigative interviews, improve the quality of evidence with vulnerable witnesses and victims with an intellectual disability. Multimodality interactional work carried out by the interviewing police officer, an intermediary and the vulnerable witness with limited verbal abilities to answer the open question, ‘What happened?’ is analysed. We demonstrate that low technology communication aids can successfully be utilised to elicit the same type of information from those with limited verbal abilities, as the verbal open question ‘What happened?’, in an unrehearsed and unbiased manner. Aids used in this manner retain the functionality of open questions while reducing their linguistic complexity. This validates the importance of adopting special measures such as the involvement of an intermediary and communication aids in investigative interviews to promote equal opportunities and a fair trial for all.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“告诉我发生了什么”:低技术通信辅助工具用于中介调解警察对智力残疾的脆弱证人的调查访谈
本研究调查了在真实的中介警察调查访谈中选择、引入和管理两种类型的沟通辅助工具(木制人体模型和线条画)的方式,以提高弱势证人和智障受害者的证据质量。由接受采访的警官、中间人和语言能力有限的弱势证人进行的多模式互动工作,以回答“发生了什么?”的分析。我们证明,低技术的交流辅助工具可以成功地从那些语言能力有限的人那里引出同样类型的信息,就像“发生了什么?”,以一种未经排练的、不偏不倚的态度。以这种方式使用的辅助工具保留了开放性问题的功能,同时降低了其语言复杂性。这证实了采取特别措施的重要性,例如在调查采访中让中间人和通讯辅助人员参与,以促进所有人的平等机会和公平审判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Preponderance, proportionality, stepwise liability Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability The skewing effect of outcome evidence The economic case for conviction multiplicity What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Results of an experimental vignette study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1