Methodology of interrogating a suspect in light of the Mèndez principles
Abstract
The subject of interest on the basis of this article, the author coverage of the issue of the methodology of interrogation of a suspect, as one of the key evidentiary activities in the criminal process. The choice of the topic was determined by the fact that this activity remained and still remains in the orbit of interest of the state bodies responsible for protecting its internal and external security. Indeed, a personal source of evidence, such as a suspect, properly used, is one of the key sources for obtaining the necessary information. However, the recognition of the results of such an interrogation as evidence in a criminal trial requires the preservation of certain legal guarantees on the part of the investigating authorities, ensuring the freedom of the interrogated person from all forms of coercion, as unauthorized means of obtaining information. An important development that made a significant contribution to the discussion of the principles of interrogation of a suspect was the preparation by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan E. Méndez’s document entitled Principles of Effective Interrogation for Pre-Trial Investigations and Information Gathering. This study has become an important point of reference for the international community to assess whether the regulations in force in national legal orders provide adequate protection of the rights of interrogated persons, especially suspects, and at the same time enable the effective realization of the goals of interrogation. The circumstances in question inspired the author to make a closer legal analysis of these regulations and thus set the goal of this study. Thus, the purpose of the article is an attempt to evaluate the rules for interrogating a suspect proposed by Juan E. Méndez, made from the perspective of the solutions in force in the Polish criminal procedure. In doing so, the author relied on the methods inherent in legal sciences, primarily the formal-dogmatic method. As a final result, it became possible to identify the areas in need of amendment and to propose appropriate factual and legal solutions.
Keywords:
law, procedural guarantees, pre-trial proceedings, interrogation methodology, evidence, coercionReferences
Cieślak M., Doda Z., Kierunki orzecznictwa SN w zakresie postępowania, „Palestra” 1984, nr 10. Google Scholar
Czeczot Z., Kryminalistyczna problematyka osobowych środków dowodowych, Wyd. UW, Warszawa 1976. Google Scholar
Garrett B.L., Contaminated confessions revisited, „Virginia Law Review” 2015, t. 101, nr 2. Google Scholar
Grzegorczyk T., Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, t. 1, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014. Google Scholar
Gudjonsson G.H., The psychology of false confessions: forty years of science and practice, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken 2018. Google Scholar
Hofmański P., Sadzik E., Zgryzek K., Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, t. 1, C.H. Beck, Warszawa 2007. Google Scholar
Hołyst B., Kryminalistyka, LexisNexis, Warszawa 2004. Google Scholar
Kassin S.M., Drizin S.A., Grisso T., Gudjonsson G.H., Leo R.A., Redlich A.D., Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations, „Law & Human Behavior” 2010, t. 34, nr 1. Google Scholar
Kwiatkowski Z., Zakazy dowodowe w procesie karnym, Zakamycze, Kraków 2001. Google Scholar
Leo R.A., Why interrogation contamination occurs, „Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law” 2013, t. 11, nr 1. Google Scholar
Meissner C.A., Kassin S.M., You’re guilty, so just confess!: cognitive and behavioural confirmation biases in the interrogation room, [w:] G.D. Lassiter (red.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment, Springer, New York 2004. Google Scholar
Mèndez J.E., Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information gathering, https://www.apt.ch/en/resources/publications/new-principles-effective-interviewinginvestigations-and-information Google Scholar
Morgan III C.A., Southwick S., Steffian G., Hazlett G.A., Loftus E.F., Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events, „International Journal of Law and Psychiatry” 2013, t. 36, nr 1. Google Scholar
O’Mara S., Why torture doesn’t work: the neuroscience of interrogation, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2015. Google Scholar
Stawski R.S., Sliwinski M.J., Smyth J.M., The effects of an acute psychosocial stressor on episodic memory, „European Journal of Cognitive Psychology” 2009, t. 21, nr 6. Google Scholar
Vrij A., Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester 2011. Google Scholar
Vrij A., Meissner C.A., Kassin S.M., Morgan III C.A., Fisher R.P., Kleinman S.M., Psychological perspectives on interrogation, „Perspectives on Psychological Science” 2017, t. 12, nr 6. Google Scholar
Young K., Drevets W., Schulkin J., Erickson K., Dose-dependent effects of hydrocortisone infusion on autobiographical memory recall, „Behavioural Neuroscience” 2011, t. 125, nr 5. Google Scholar
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
