“行为调查顾问”(BIAs)在英国刑事调查中的作用和贡献

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Criminal Psychology Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0044
Tinna Dögg Sigurdardóttir, Lee Rainbow, Adam Gregory, Pippa Gregory, Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson
{"title":"“行为调查顾问”(BIAs)在英国刑事调查中的作用和贡献","authors":"Tinna Dögg Sigurdardóttir, Lee Rainbow, Adam Gregory, Pippa Gregory, Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson","doi":"10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose The present study aims to examine the scope and contribution of behavioural investigative advice (BIA) reports from the National Crime Agency (NCA). Design/methodology/approach The 77 BIA reports reviewed were written between 2016 and 2021. They were evaluated using Toulmin’s (1958) strategy for structuring pertinent arguments, current compliance with professional standards, the grounds and backing provided for the claims made and the potential utility of the recommendations provided. Findings Consistent with previous research, most of the reports involved murder and sexual offences. The BIA reports met professional standards with extremely high frequency. The 77 reports contained a total of 1,308 claims of which 99% were based on stated grounds. A warrant and/or backing was provided for 73% of the claims. Most of the claims in the BIA reports involved a behavioural evaluation of the crime scene and offender characteristics. The potential utility of the reports was judged to be 95% for informative behavioural crime scene analysis and 40% for potential new lines of enquiry. Practical implications The reports should serve as a model for the work of behavioural investigative advisers internationally. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate BIA reports commissioned by the NCA; it adds to previous similar studies by evaluating the largest number of BIA reports ever reviewed, and uniquely provides judgement of overall utility.","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The current role and contribution of “behavioural investigative advisers” (BIAs) to criminal investigation in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Tinna Dögg Sigurdardóttir, Lee Rainbow, Adam Gregory, Pippa Gregory, Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose The present study aims to examine the scope and contribution of behavioural investigative advice (BIA) reports from the National Crime Agency (NCA). Design/methodology/approach The 77 BIA reports reviewed were written between 2016 and 2021. They were evaluated using Toulmin’s (1958) strategy for structuring pertinent arguments, current compliance with professional standards, the grounds and backing provided for the claims made and the potential utility of the recommendations provided. Findings Consistent with previous research, most of the reports involved murder and sexual offences. The BIA reports met professional standards with extremely high frequency. The 77 reports contained a total of 1,308 claims of which 99% were based on stated grounds. A warrant and/or backing was provided for 73% of the claims. Most of the claims in the BIA reports involved a behavioural evaluation of the crime scene and offender characteristics. The potential utility of the reports was judged to be 95% for informative behavioural crime scene analysis and 40% for potential new lines of enquiry. Practical implications The reports should serve as a model for the work of behavioural investigative advisers internationally. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate BIA reports commissioned by the NCA; it adds to previous similar studies by evaluating the largest number of BIA reports ever reviewed, and uniquely provides judgement of overall utility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminal Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminal Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-07-2023-0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究的目的是检查的范围和贡献的行为调查建议(BIA)报告从国家犯罪局(NCA)。所审查的77份BIA报告撰写于2016年至2021年之间。使用Toulmin(1958)的策略来构建相关论点,当前对专业标准的遵守情况,所提出主张的依据和支持以及所提供建议的潜在效用。与之前的研究一致,大多数报告涉及谋杀和性犯罪。BIA的报告以极高的频率达到了专业标准。77份报告共载有1 308项索赔要求,其中99%是根据所述理由提出的。73%的债权获得了认股权证和/或担保。BIA报告中的大多数索赔都涉及对犯罪现场和罪犯特征的行为评估。报告的潜在效用被认为是95%的信息性行为犯罪现场分析和40%的潜在新调查线。这些报告应成为国际行为调查顾问工作的典范。据作者所知,这是第一个系统评估NCA委托BIA报告的研究;它通过评估迄今为止审查过的最大量的BIA报告,增加了以前类似的研究,并独特地提供了对总体效用的判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The current role and contribution of “behavioural investigative advisers” (BIAs) to criminal investigation in the United Kingdom
Purpose The present study aims to examine the scope and contribution of behavioural investigative advice (BIA) reports from the National Crime Agency (NCA). Design/methodology/approach The 77 BIA reports reviewed were written between 2016 and 2021. They were evaluated using Toulmin’s (1958) strategy for structuring pertinent arguments, current compliance with professional standards, the grounds and backing provided for the claims made and the potential utility of the recommendations provided. Findings Consistent with previous research, most of the reports involved murder and sexual offences. The BIA reports met professional standards with extremely high frequency. The 77 reports contained a total of 1,308 claims of which 99% were based on stated grounds. A warrant and/or backing was provided for 73% of the claims. Most of the claims in the BIA reports involved a behavioural evaluation of the crime scene and offender characteristics. The potential utility of the reports was judged to be 95% for informative behavioural crime scene analysis and 40% for potential new lines of enquiry. Practical implications The reports should serve as a model for the work of behavioural investigative advisers internationally. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically evaluate BIA reports commissioned by the NCA; it adds to previous similar studies by evaluating the largest number of BIA reports ever reviewed, and uniquely provides judgement of overall utility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Policing rape and serious sexual offences: officers’ insights on police specialism Sexual harassment, rape myths and paraphilias in the general population: a mediation analysis study Operation Soteria Bluestone: Rethinking RASSO investigations The effect of tailored reciprocity on information provision in an investigative interview Reconstructive psychological assessment (RPA) applied to the analysis of digital behavioral residues in forensic contexts
×
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