Interrogation in Polish criminal procedure – the methods of questioning and deception detection

Timetable

Module aim (aims)

General:

• To inform students about general rules of interrogation in Polish criminal procedure (including the articles of Polish Code of Criminal Procedure and their meaning)
• To describe the methods of interrogation
• To let students develop their deception detection skills by presenting them scientific methods of deception detection
• To present scientific methods of statement validity and credibility assessment and to explain how to use them
• To practise gathered knowledge in a simulation of interrogation

 Specific:

1. Learning effects:

Having completed the course, the student is able to:

• Define goals and list the types of interrogation in Polish criminal procedure
• Describe the methods of interrogation
• Define the credibility of statements and its possible criteria
• Define the deception (lie) and explain both verbal and non-verbal cues to deception
• Identify the techniques of deception detection

       2. Understanding information:

Having completed the course, the student is able to:

• To differentiate the types of interrogation in Polish criminal procedure
• To describe briefly the course of interrogation
• To illustrate with examples different types of deception (lie)
• To differentiate the terms: credibility, honesty and the truth of a statement
• To explain the different techniques of deception detection

        3.Using information in typical situation:

Having completed the course, the student is able to:

• To compare the methods of interrogation
• To define the role of statement credibility assessment in the criminal procedure
• To describe the limitations of deception detection (in both verbal and non-verbal methods of deception detection)
• To solve a case pertaining the methods of interrogation
• To choose the proper interrogation method for the case

         4. Using information in problematic situation:

Having completed the course, the student is able to:

• To analyse, which one of the methods of interrogation is the most suitable for the case
• To assess the credibility of witness’ statements using one of the methods of assessment
• To analyse the possible flaws of the assessment of credibility of the statements
• To predict the most effective deception detection method for the case
• To predict the limitations of the use of the chosen deception detection technique

Pre-requisites in terms of knowledge, skills and social competences (where relevant)

None

Syllabus

Week 1:            Interrogation in Polish criminal procedure – legal framework: part 1.                 

Week 2:            Interrogation in Polish criminal procedure – legal framework: part 2.

Week 3:            Interrogation in Polish criminal procedure – methods and techniques.

Week 4:            How does the witness perceive the reality? – part 1 (introduction).

Week 5:            How does the witness perceive the reality? – part 2 (theory and practice).

Week 6:            The influence of the interrogation on the witness and his statement.

Week 7:            Credibility of statements – methods of assessment; theory and practice: part 1 (introduction).

Week 8:            Credibility of statements – methods of assessment; theory and practice: part 2 (SVA – Statement Validity Assessment).

Week 9:            Credibility of statements – methods of assessment; theory and practice: part 3 (RM -Reality Monitoring).

Week 10:          Credibility of statements – methods of assessment; theory and practice: part 4 (MASAM – Multivariable Adults' Statements Assessment Method).

Week 11:           The truth about lie and how to detect deception (Paul Ekman’s method): part 1.

Week 12:           The truth about lie and how to detect deception (Paul Ekman’s method): part 2.

Week 13:           Simulation of the interrogation: part 1.

Week 14:           Simulation of the interrogation: part 2.

Week 15:           Simulation of the interrogation: part 3.

Reading list

1. Books and articles in English:

• Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage, W. W. Norton & Company, 2009;
• Vrij, Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, Wiley-Interscience, 2008;
• Bogaard, E. H. Meijer, A. Vrij, H. Merckelbach, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) Cannot Distinguish Between Truthful and Fabricated Accounts of a Negative Event, Frontiers in Psychology, 243, 7, February 2016, www.frontiersin.org.
• Harvey, A. Vrij i in., Applying the Verifiability Approach to insurance claims settings: Exploring the effect of the information protocol, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2016, DOI: 10.1111/lcrp.12092, p. 1-3
• Shaw, A. Vrij i in., ‘We’ll Take It from Here’: The Effect of Changing Interviewers in Information
• Shaw, A. Vrij et al., Mimicry and Investigative Interviewing: Using Deliberate Mimicry to Elicit Information and Cues to Deceit, Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 12, 2015, p. 217–230; Warszawa, 2012;
• Vrij i in. & K. Sperry, Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions, Law and Human Behavior, 33, 2009, p. 159–166;
• Vrij, G. Nahari, A. Vrij & Fisher, R. P., Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 2014, s. 227–239.
• Nahari, A. Vrij, & R.P. Fisher, The verifiability approach: Countermeasures facilitate its ability to discriminate between truths and lies, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 2014, s. 122–128.
• Dr J. Shaw, The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting, and the Science of False Memory, Random House UK, 2016.

 Books and articles in Polish:

• Gruza, M. Goc, J. Moszczyński, Kryminalistyka - czyli rzecz o metodach śledczych, Oficyna Wydawnicza Łośgraf, Warszawa 2011;
• P. Krysiak, Przesłuchanie podejrzanego, Wyd. Wyższej Szkoły Policji w Szczytnie, Szczytno 2007;
• P. Krysiak, Przesłuchanie świadka, Wyd. Wyższej Szkoły Policji w Szczytnie, Sczytno 2007;
• Kulicki, V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz, Kryminalistyka. Wybrane zagadnienia teorii i praktyki śledczo-sądowej, Wyd. Nauk. UMK, Toruń 2009;
• Arntzen, Psychologia zeznań świadków, PWN, Warszawa 1989;
• Gruza, Psychologia sądowa dla prawników, LEX, Warszawa 2012;
• Gruza, M. Goc, J. Moszczyński, Kryminalistyka - czyli rzecz o metodach śledczych, OW Łośgraf, Warszawa 2011;
• Kołakowska, M. Lach, Psychologiczne determinanty zeznań świadków i osób składających wyjaśnienia (wybrane zagadnienia), materiały dydaktyczne, Szczytno 1998;
• Kulicki, V. Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz, L. Stępka, Kryminalistyka. Wybrane zagadnienia teorii i praktyki śledczo-sądowej, WN UMK, Toruń 2009;
• Marten, Psychologia zeznań, Wydanie 1, LexisNexis, Warszawa 2012;
• Psychologia zeznań świadków (w ćwiczeniach), (red.nauk.) J. M. Stanik, A. Roszkowska, WUŚ, Katowice 2009;
• W. Wojciechowski, Analiza i ocena zeznań świadków, GWP, Sopot 2016;
• L. Duprat, Kłamstwo – studium psycho-socyologiczne, nakład Gebethnera i Wolffa, Warszawa 1905;
• Kołakowska, B. Lach, Psychologiczne determinanty zeznań świadków i osób składających wyjaśnienia (wybrane zagadnienia), Materiały dydaktyczne, Szczytno 1998;
• W. Wojciechowski, Analiza i ocena zeznań świadków, GWP, Sopot 2016;
• Marten, Psychologia zeznań, Wydanie 1, LexisNexis, Warszawa 2012;
• Ustawa z dnia 6 kwietnia 1990 r. o Policji (Dz. U. z 2015 r. poz. 355 ze zm.);
• Wytyczne Nr 3 Komendanta Głównego Policji z dnia 30 sierpnia 2017 r. w sprawie wykonywania niektórych czynności dochodzeniowo-śledczych przez policjantów;
• Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. Kodeks postępowania karnego (Dz.U.2016.1749-j.t.);
• Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. Kodeks karny (Dz.U.2016.1137 -j.t.).