How We are Failing as Criminology Researchers...A Call for Action

Unlike my previous blog posts, which have previously had a heavy forensic basis with the analysis of criminal evidence, this blog post will focus on how researchers are failing in the science of criminology...

I often get asked by friends how my current research involving the intersection of gender, sexuality, and officer bias is criminological in nature. When the same friends ask me how do I define "criminology", I have always summed it up typically like this...if psychology and sociology had a crazy drunkard encounter their child would be criminology. Criminology is not "Clarice Starling" interviewing "Hannibal Lector" from "Silence of the Lambs", nor is it determining the probability of recovering readable latent prints on the skin of a homicide victim (see my previous post on latent prints to answer that question). Criminology is the study of determining why certain individuals commit certain crimes, how to prevent and control said crimes, and the very nature and extent of criminal behavior. Criminological research is supposed to accomplish this by examining policy, society, and even to an extent how officers target certain offenders and certain crimes. The complexities of the science itself can even be as detailed as examining what actually constitutes as a crime. While criminology is not a new science, as Italian Cesare Beccaria formulated the principles of classic criminology around 1804 in Essay on Crimes and Punishments, the concepts of contemporary criminologies are deemed as such.

Often modern researchers latch onto old theoretical concepts without giving up-and-coming criminology movements a fair shot. For example, recently I read an article by Rick Nevin in which he addressed how levels of crime could be connected to high levels of lead in drinking water. (For the curious the interesting article is here: http://pic.plover.com/Nevin/Nevin2007.pdf )

While most laughed at the concept of Nevin's (2007) lead argument and additional arguments by Howard Mielke and Sammy Zahran (article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412012000566), they did present something that no one had ever done before. Some have dismissed similar arguments in the somewhat new green criminology movement and other criminology movements, but this is where we as criminologists are failing our science.

With each criminology movement- the positivist revolution, Matza's naturalism, the Chicago School, etc.-the concepts and ideas are viewed as radical and unorthodox for the time. Sure, most criminologists laugh at Lombroso and the Italian School of Criminology in respect to cranial features determining criminal probability of individuals now, but at least they attempted to discover a different explanation for criminal behavior than previous researchers. We, as criminologists, owe it to our science to explore uncharted territories without falling back on constant regurgitated academic theoretical basic philosophies. If we have not successfully explained, discovered, treated, or cured the cause and purpose for crime with years of research with said regurgitated theories---then in essence we have failed. I urge any researcher who is reading this post to always think outside the box of what you read in textbooks---the ramblings of a dinosaur criminologist does nothing to encourage critical thinking in our field. While we must respect what has already been contributed, we must also take these concepts with a grain of salt. We should instead set sail for the uncharted waters of the criminological unknown. If you fail during your journey, at least you have attempted to do something different and solve a problem with a new criminological formula as there is no one way to solve the crime problem.

So for those young pioneers formulating new theories and concepts for our science, stay strong on your course and have the strength to face those who are critical of new theories. Look to other sciences to incorporate into criminology--like biology, psychology, and gender studies. Because in time, the theories of the criminological dinosaurs that academia holds true today will be just as laughable as Lombroso's theory of criminal atavism. Keep thinking critically and never shun those who do the same!

Media Conflict with Forensic Post-Blast Investigations

Since the Boston bombings, I have received several emails from previous students who are asking me to better explain the IEDs that were used in the Boston Marathon. Without going into to much technical detail on construction, I have found this diagram that has been widely circulated internationally throughout news outlets (hence why I am reposting it for demonstrative purposes without any ethical qualms). It should be noted that any speculation at the early stages of a forensic investigation should not lead to a confirmed conclusion until any crime scene/ case is cleared. As such, this blog post is about how the media can damage a major crime scene investigation at a blast site.

It should be noted that this type of device has already been used in the 2005 Delhl's Sarojini Nagar Market bombing, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, the failed 2010 Stockholm bombing attempt, and the failed 2010 New York Times Square bombing attempt, so it's construction is not a new one. 

Now onto my main part of this post, how the media conflicts with forensic investigations. Since this incident this diagram has been widely circulated along with a brief incorrect history over the construction of the device. Several media outlets have eluded readers that the device construction has a long history in the Middle East indirectly implying that the suspect(s) may be from the same region. I have even seen media photos before the detonation of "possible suspects" at the scene who are of potential Islamic descent without giving any explanation of why they are "suspects". This adds fuel to the anti-Islamic biases that some Americans and Brits possess, and indirectly diverts attention away from any other possible non-Islamic suspect(s) which may or may not impact the actual investigation. As previously mentioned the construction of the device has a deeper history and connection to other parts of the world than the media is exploring. Further, the media appears to be releasing crime scene photos of victims and additional diagrams and photos of the epic center of both detonations without any regard to the on-gong investigation. Based on my detective experience, I can tell you that the releasing of too much information by the media can destroy an investigation, arrest, trial, and even people's lives. A perfect example of this was the handling of the Atlanta Olympic bombing investigation. 

Richard Jewell was a security guard working the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. During his security detail he discovered a pipe bomb and alerted Atlanta Police and helped evacuate the area--saving lives before it detonated. Because he discovered the device and had an eccentric history of wanting to be a hero and police officer the media began trying him without any actual forensic evidence, and with unreliable and inaccurate information. The media trial began with the local paper releasing his name as a possible suspect in the FBI investigation, from there the media snowball spun out of control. As a result of the media two victims even civilly sued Jewell himself before the investigation was completed. In 2005, Jewell was exonerated and the investigation was closed, disclosing that serial bomber Eric Rudolph was responsible for the incident. Jewell then successfully sued NBC, A.J.C. (local newspaper), CNN, New York Post, etc. after he and his family were cruelly and publicly tried by the media. Jewell eventually was able to full-fill his law enforcement dream after his exoneration, but he died at the age of 44 from heart disease and diabetes. One has to wonder how much his international media attention damaged his overall health.

Media speculation will naturally be at an all time high in an incident like this in America and other parts of the Western world, but for some odd reason similar incidents like this occur everyday in other parts of the Eastern world without any media attention at all. On a personal note, I have a hard time understanding how the media holds American lives more highly than others who are victims of other terrorists type events that occur in much larger scale and with worst destruction in other parts of the world (this topic is for another blog post, and due to space constrains will be properly addressed later). As such, I would like to encourage the media to respect the integrity of the crime scene without falsely reporting or referencing possible bomber M.O. (modus operandi) and allow the professionals to do a fair and accurate forensic investigation. Do we really need to know every detail leading to an arrest? With the release of abundant information, once an arrest is made how will this effect jurors in a criminal trial? Bombing investigations can take up to several weeks and it is a slow methodological process to collect and analysis forensic evidence at a crime scene. As such, we need to be patient and not prematurely point bias fingers at any suspect(s) until the guilty party is found.

Psychological Dynamics: Interviewer Characteristics and Suspect Criminal Disclosure

         When investigators conduct an interview, there are possible factors that can influence a questioned person’s responses. These responses can be influenced by the steps of the interview. These steps are part of the cognitive process and begin with a question asked by investigators, and the persons interpreting the question correctly. The person being interviewed then must retrieve the information from memory and construct an answer. During this process, respondents can form answers, edit the responses for social desirability, or shape responses to what they believe the investigator will find acceptable (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). These responses can be shaped by many factors. These factors can include the investigators’ sex, race, age, gender, and their perceived personality. A response might also be shaped by political beliefs, sexual behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse that the investigator might suggest or project during the interview (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). Two theories that criminologists and psychologists believe describe these steps of answer editing are the Social Attribution Theory and the Social Distance Model. Both describe the process of answer editing based on the investigator characteristics.

            The Social Attribution Theory suggests that a respondent may modify their responses to meet the societal norms and expectations they perceive that the investigator has based off observable characteristics (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). This theory is built on the assumption that the investigator characteristics alone are sufficient to influence the behavior and the responses of those being interviewed (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). For example, an interviewee would be less likely to discuss illegal substance abuse to an investigator who presents observable characteristics that maybe associated with a negative attitude toward drug abuse. The interviewee would withhold or alter their responses to make them more compatible with the perceived investigator’s values (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999).

            Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) conducted a study of interviews and subject effects on cocaine and marijuana use disclosure during questioning. The sample comprised of over 3,000 male juvenile arrestees. The juveniles were asked questions about their drug use, particularly marijuana and cocaine. If the juvenile disclosed that they had used either drug, interviewers then asked additional questions regarding the frequency and the last time of their use of the drug. Immediately following the interview, the juveniles were asked to submit to a urine test to confirm any statements. Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) found that there was a diminished rate of disclosure that was related to the interviewers’ race; with the less disclosure to interviewers who were African-American. But in regards to marijuana reporting, there existed diminished rates of disclosure. This was attributed and related to the interviewers’ gender; with less disclosure to female interviewers (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). The interviewers’ age also played a role in disclosure during the study. The juveniles of this study were less likely to disclose their drug use, marijuana and cocaine, to older interviewers (Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar, 1999). This study also showed that the participants of this study were reluctant to disclose cocaine use but more willing to disclose marijuana use during questioning. Fendrich, Johnson, Shaligram, & Wislar (1999) showed that the less morally sensitive drug, marijuana, had a higher disclosure rate during questioning than its’ perceived more dangerous drug, cocaine, based on the interviewers characteristics. This study demonstrated that certain observable interviewer characteristics are associated with voluntary drug usage disclosure.

            For law enforcement investigators, this study involving the Social Attribution Theory clearly shows that as soon as an investigator walks into a room to interview a person, the person already makes assumptions of the investigator and their perceived values. So what happens in situations involving morally sensitive topics that are discussed during an interview? Another theory as to how certain information of morally sensitive topics is disclosed to investigators can be attributed to the Social Distance Theory.

 The Social Distance Theory is based on the idea that individuals may be hesitant to disclose personal information on sensitive topics, such as sexual behaviors and domestic violence due to the social stigma of the crime or the lack of connection between the investigator and interviewee. If an interviewee perceives that that an investigator has a negative stigma associated with a crime, the interviewee will be less likely to disclose it because they do not feel connected to the investigator. Perceived values that the investigator presents are interrelated with the level of stigma that an interviewee associates with a piece of information. Criminal behaviors are sensitive topics that are stigmatized and criminalized by mainstream society and by investigators in general (Golub, Johnson, Taylor, & Liberty, 2002). Sensitive behaviors such as drug use, sexual practices, and physical violence all have different levels of stigmas. This model states that a respondents’ willingness to disclose sensitive information depends on the social stigma they associate with it (Lord, Friday, & Brennan, 2005). This perceived stigma is based off the differences between the investigator and the interviewee. People tend to disclose more honestly and in greater detail to investigators whom they feel more emotionally comfortable (Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, & Coates, 1996). Interviewees edit their responses to the similarities and differences between themselves and the investigator asking questions. For example, if an investigator walks into a room and immediately tells someone they are questioning for child molestation, “child molesters are disgusting...how could anyone do such things to beautiful children”, the interviewee will probably never disclose any information because of the social stigma associated with the crime combined with the perceived values of the investigator. Investigators should be cognitive of stigmas during questioning. It should be noted that stigmas can also appear in an investigators non-verbal movements and gestures also. Something as simple as the nodding of your head in agreement or the look of disgust while the offender is talking could impact the probability of disclosure.

According to a study done by Goulb et al. (2002), individuals are more willing to disclose marijuana use, which is the least stigmatized of the illegal drugs, than recent use of crack cocaine. Goulb et al. (2002) attributed this finding to the social expectations and perceptions of marijuana usage versus crack cocaine usage. Goulb's (2002) theory has since been supported by other recent similar studies. 

A study by Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, & Gillespie (2000) measured telephone responses regarding lifetime drug disclosure of 3,714 survey participants in Illinois. This study determined that respondents’ reporting recent drug use is relative to interview situations characterized by very high respondent-interviewer similarity (Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, & Gillespie, 2000). In other words, the closer the respondents felt to the interviewer, the more likely they are to disclose information. Johnson, Fenrich, Shaligram, Garcy, and Gillespie (2000) found that a person interviewed may react, consciously or not, to interviewers based on stereotypes and misperceptions. This should be an important issue for investigators to remember, since a person being interviewed might hold a bias against the investigator's race. This would make it less likely that the interviewee would form a “bond” with the investigator and disclose any information needed during a confession.

Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, and Coates (1996) conducted a study of 2,030 18-49 year old adults and asked them questions on sexual behavior. Participants were allowed to choose if they wanted a female or a male interviewer to disclose information about their sexual behavior. Catania et al. (1996) hypothesized that both males and females given the choice to pick the gender of their interviewer will lead to more personal disclosure of the interviewees, which reinforces the Social Distance Model. This study showed that female respondents choose to disclose personal sexual behavior to women, and were less likely to disclose sexual information to male interviewers. Male respondents choose both men and women interviewers, with a slight majority selecting female interviewers (Catania, Binson, Canchola, Pollack, Hauck, & Coates, 1996). This study showed that by making the respondents feel more in control by selecting the gender of their interviewer, there is a perceived decrease in question threat. This perceived decrease in question threat lead to more voluntary disclosures of answers regarding personal sexual behavior.

For investigators this study has provided very valuable information, especially for investigators working sex crimes. Women who are potential suspects in a sex crime might be more willing to disclose more information or feel more comfortable with a female investigator. Men who are potential suspects in a sex crime might be more comfortable to disclose more information to a male or a female. Based on the results of this study I would urge a male and a female investigator to enter the room initially together and see which one the suspect responds or interacts with. The investigator that the suspect has the most observed or preferred interaction with should be the investigator that is the lead during the interview. It should be noted that investigators should not be insulted if the offender connects with a different investigator than themselves.

Investigators questioning possible suspects during an interview should be aware that everything they project and even who they are can determine the disclosure rate during an interview. Investigators should try to find the person that might best connect with the interviewee to be the lead interviewer in a criminal interview. Age, race, gender, and even perceived investigator values can influence how and how much a person might disclose in an interview. Investigators who are working major crimes like homicides, rapes, and child molestations might have a better success rate of disclosure if they attempt to connect with the interviewee and take the stigma away from the crime in question. By removing indicators of negative social stigma, the criminal act could be psychologically justified by the offender while in the process of disclosure. This process allows the criminal to justify or defend his criminal actions. While removing criminal and social stigmas from certain crimes can psychologically haunt investigators when "getting down on their level", it is a necessary interview tactic within policing that is very successful in obtaining criminal confessions. 

REFERENCES

Catania, J., Binson, D., Canchola, J., Pollack, L., Hauck, W., & Coates, T. (1996). Effects of Interviewer Gender, Interviewer Choice, and Item Wording on Responses to Questions Concerning Sexual Behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60,345-375.

Fendrich, M., Johnson, T., Shaligram, C., & Wislar, J. (1999). The Impact of Interviewer Characteristics on Drug Use Reporting by Male Juvenile Arrestees. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (1), 37-58.

Johnson, T., Fendrich, M., Shaligram, C., Garcy, A., & Gillespie, S. (2000). An Evaluation of the Effects of Interviewer Characteristics in an RDD Telephone Survey of Drug Use. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, (1), 77-102.

Lord, V., Friday, P., & Brennan, P. (2005). The Effects of Interviewer Characteristics on Arrestees’ Responses to Drug-Related Questions. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 1(1), 36-55.