RESEARCH by Henriette S. Haas

|Publications| Main page|
|Français| Deutsch|

 

1. Conducting interviews during interrogations, expert opinions and in the lawyer's office

In the course of the founding of the Public Prosecutor's Academy (now at the University of Lucerne), Thomas Hansjakob (1956-2018), Christoph ILL (as senior public prosecutors in the Canton of St. Gallen and course instructors) and I have professionalized interrogation technology since 2002. It should meet all the requirements of the rule of law and procedure, all logical-criminological and all cognitive psychology requirements.

Today at teaching at the Judicial Academy - "Judikative" (University of Lucerne)

The right to be heard is one of the most important principles of a democratic state. Under no circumstances should it be degraded to a bureaucratic "formality". The inner attitude of the interrogators is decisive for this guarantee: authentic interest in the other person and an unbiased attitude towards all those involved in the process in order to find out what really happened. The most important principle of any interrogation is patient listening and avoidance of any suggestion, in order to obtain the richest and most uninfluenced free account of the events and contexts in question. It should be taken into account that a complete description of events is a very unusual task, which usually overwhelms the interviewee at first. Even those who are willing to testify usually only provide summaries. It must then be brought back several times to the initial question of open narration. You really get to take the time and space to bring out all the memories. From a purely technical point of view, the task of guiding would actually not be difficult. Nevertheless, many interrogators find it difficult (especially under the workload) to hold back and allow longer periods of silence. Anyone who immediately approaches his or her supposed evidentiary goal and "rattles off" a catalogue of questions is shooting himself or herself in the foot: he or she thereby reduces the evidentiary value and risks enormous complications and unnecessary additional work. Only after a free report has been collected (in several attempts) do the questioning techniques narrow down to the open w-questions and later to the accusations with the unclarified, then to (alleged or actual) inconsistencies and still later to reproaches with other evidence. If, after an initial denial, a concession is made, there is another run through the funnel, with the collection of a new, free report (according to the hermeneutic circle).



Fig. 1: The funnel model of interrogation objectives and appropriate techniques (Haas & ILL 2023)

2. The robustness of reports and arguments (validity)

2.1 Theory of statement validity

Thanks to the stimulating discussions with Thomas Hansjakob and Christoph ILL, I was also able to clarify the objectives in order to improve the knowledge gained during the interrogation: What distinguishes statements and arguments that can be used in court and scientifically conclusive as opposed to statements that are not very useful? What requirements does linguistically conveyed information have to meet in order for it to serve to establish the truth?

Since the "truth per se" cannot be determined independently of human perception and cognition, science has formulated more modest criteria that must be met in order to define the boundary to arbitrariness. They are transparency, verifiability and falsification (no violations of the veto of the sources). From this, a validity heuristic is derived.

The Five Dimensions of Checking the Validity of Statements

I.    Source validity: Precise indications of where the information comes from and where there is more of it;

II.   Formal validity: binding, engaging formulations which are comprehensible and (in theory) also refutable theses;

III.  Internal consistency: statements do not contradict each other, no duplicity;

IV.   Factuality: statements correspond to the underlying and within reach of other sources of knowledge.

V.    Causes and intentions are determined and proven in a logically comprehensible way.

Christoph ILL has used the term "anchor" for particularly reliable statements: Anchors are those pieces of information that can be independently verified without the interviewee knowing it. They allow conclusions to be drawn about the credibility of the whole narrative and about the honesty of the person. ILL has also reviewed judicial decision-making in the sense of the Aristotelian syllogism.

By the way, lies and self-protective claims are not always irrelevant: They can inadvertently reveal things that only the perpetrator can know about. As Mark Twain wrote: "Facts must be known before they can be twisted."

2.2 Demarcation between circumstantial evidence and illusions of proof or academic fabrications

A subchapter of validity research are examples of unsustainable claims, of illusions or of bullshit in the sense of the philosopher Harry Frankfurt. . Research and jurisprudence need enlightened cases in order to be able to further develop text and image reception as well as methods of interpretation, i.e. to explore their limits and strengths and also to name the phenomena. The collection of such "narratives" is also indispensable for teaching, whether for illustration, exercise and exams.

Files from legal proceedings would be ideal for illustrating and researching unreliable representations in verbal statements, but they are hardly available. Court rulings rarely discuss questionable details in the depositions. If those are refuted by facts, only the facts are listed, while defensive, untrue allegations do not appear. Unfortunately, there is also a lack of cleared cases of humbug, in which the "ground truth", i.e. the objective facts are documented and publicly available so as to be verifiablein every details.

On the other hand, failed "narratives" from constructivist circles around Michel Foucault, Bruno Latour, Paul De Man, Edward Said, Judith Butler, Paul Feyerabend and others (the so-called French School), which reject Cartesian reasoning and enlightenment on ideological grounds, provide suitable examples. They refer to publicly accessible archival materials and literature and do not contain any business or official secrets. Furthermore, well-founded criticism of professional skills or the performance of authors is legally unobjectionable (BGE 105 IV 111) - even desirable in academia.

In 2017, I stumbled upon a travesty of academic work with a remarkable hodgepodge of blunders. This lucky discovery drew my attention to the post-truth narratives of constructivists (cf. 2020, footnote 90). Under the flags of "discourse analysis", "actor-network theory", "postcolonial studies", "history of science", "deconstruction", a fad of exaggerated sensational reporting in academic garb has taken hold of the Liberal Arts. It stems from an extreme interpretation of dubious postulates by the above-mentioned French School authors. (as reported by Miller 2020 and Breeze 2012).

Unfortunately, the university hierarchy and the research funding administration can barely able cope with this behavior. This was reported not so long ago by someone who should know: History professor Caspar Hirschi. He serves as Dean at the University of St. Gallen and investigates the power of experts (, such as the failure of peer review in Merkur 2018). The management sees itself in a position of weakness, according to Hirschi(NZZaS 2022): "Their task is similar to what is called herding cats in English: They may give the professorial strays food and cuddles, but not to get too close with demands or expectations. Otherwise scratches will be the consequence. They themselves are also ridiculed as castrated researchers. Those who must lead, are quickly seen as failures in their real academic vocation."

Thanks: I have been receiving professional support from several historian colleagues for years, to whom I want to express my sincere thanks. (Not all authors who - at some point refer to ideas and texts from the French School - pursue the misguided approach of a hermeneutics of suspicion, as Miller and Breeze mention. A devaluation of historians and their methods cannot be deduced from my criticism of some unfortunate examples. In other disciplines, there is also a certain amount of less valid studies and methodological aberrations, and I have criticized them as well. Most historians work seriously, are able to write critically and refer to the more reasonable passages of the authors in question. Here are some examples of successful and highly readable works in the history of science with an adequate reception of Foucault, Latour & Co: Ritter (2009, cf. p. 43f), Gausemeier (2005, cf. p. 31f), Lipphard (in Nürnberg et al. 2014). Grimm 2012 has significantly improved Latour's ANT and raised it to a scientific level. For more information, see Geschichtsvalidität).

3. Systematic observation and interpretation of texts and images

How do you proceed when you know practically nothing and have little material? Where to look at all? This requires plausible working hypotheses. The beginning of any scientific treatment of a new criminal case or phenomenon and the close observation and interpretation of relevant material are hardly discussed. Especially for criminology, but also for phenomenology in all sciences, I have derived a guide to systematic observation from cognitive psychology and philosophy of science. The instructions help scientists and investigators take a closer look. They are to be applied in a hermeneutical circle. This approach would be particularly helpful in historical scholarship in order to examine statements under the conditions of censorship and propaganda (during war, under dictatorships) and not to prematurely dismiss them according to their superficial appearance from today's point of view.

Systematic observation as a procedure

Rules Circle

I.  Compare the object of observation with models (standards, norms, categories of deviance, similar cases, context information).

II.  Consider both the form of all signs and their presumed meaning(s).

III.  According to the models, break down the object into the functional components of its structure(s) and examine each one individually. This results in an inventory of the signd of evidence.

IV. Examine inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, astonishing coincidences (in the inventory of all signs).

V.  Examine the possible absence of important signs or their (supposed) superfluity based on the model structures.

When systematically recording all the details, ideas emerge as to how the case could be explained (so-called abduction according to Peirce). The hypotheses found should now be subjected to a plausibility check. For each sign, one discusses the extent to which it supports or seems to refute a particular hypothesis or cannot be classified. The so-called Franklin table provides an overview of the evidence for a hypothesis that is easier to discuss than a written report alone.



Fig. 3: Die Franklin-Tabelle aller Indizien

4. 4. Forensic Psychology, statement credibility assessment and Victimology

5. Criminal Psychology

5.1 Threat assessment and management of such situations

Anwendungsbereiche: Polizeiliche, nachrichtendienstliche und klinisch-psychiatrische Evaluation von Drohungen, Stalking, bei häuslicher Gewalt, Drohungen gegen Politiker/innen, gegen Behörden und Beamte.

Areas of application: Police, intelligence and clinical-psychiatric evaluation of threats, stalking, domestic violence, threats against politicians, authorities and civil servants. Threats, anonymous letters, written nonsense, and other inappropriate communications should be treated as criminal evidence to be interpreted in the given social, cultural, and individual context. Context-specific are labour conflicts, domestic violence, cultural conflicts among immigrants, violence and threats against officials, threats against politicians, etc. The semiotic model of communication consists of the sender (perpetrator), the message, the recipient, the designated victim and all kinds of victims. free riders or interference. In order to assess a situation, all elements must be included in the evaluation



Fig. 4: The semiotic model of threats and other inappropirate communication

5.2 On the emergence of criminal behavior and the fight against it

5.3 Federal Youth and Recruit Survey 1997 on experienced and practiced Violence ch-x

Are criminals people like you and me who have simply had the misfortune of being involved in a crime, or do they tend to be mentally disturbed? Why does someone become a violent offender, why a rapist? Which factors play a major role and which are more subordinate or none? The survey of 21,347 recruits in 1997 and a sample of 1,160 non-recruits provided the opportunity to investigate serious crimes in the dark field. Due to the general compulsory military service for men, the sample comprises about 70% of all 20-year-old Swiss males, the age cohort.

One of the most important risk factors for later violence and sexual assault in young men turned out to be sexual abuse trauma in the boys' childhood - not physical abuse (without a sexual component). This factor also fully explained the disproportionate representation of secondos with parents from crisis areas among the perpetrators. So it is not nationality or immigration, but an increased risk that sex offenders can approach such children. With this result, xenophobia can be put to a halt.

In the light of the comprehensive sample of 21,314 valid (reputably filled) questionnaires and 900 variables on very different influences, it was also possible to refute the myth that it is "repression" that causes crime in the first place. The so-called "labelling theory" - in a social state governed by the rule of law - had no explanatory power whatsoever for biographically subsequent delinquency. Rather, this thesis itself produces the stigma it purports to combat. It assumes that the less privileged (e.g. former children in institutions) have a tendency to delinquency, and wrongly so, as the data have shown. The ideology, however, is an undead and will probably remain so for some time to come. It is artificially kept alive by political activists and enterprising sensationalists.



Fig. 5: The survey carried out by the experts of ch-x in 1997

In order to maintain anonymity and calm, the recruit interviews are conducted under the supervision of external experts (these are usually teachers, there are no military superiors in the room). There is also an empty space between two recruits and an urn in front. Each individual question was accompanied by the item "I don't want to answer" so that the voluntariness was fully guaranteed and no one in the room could notice if someone did not want to reveal their privacy. At the end, all recruits threw their questionnaire into a ballot box (more about this: Rekrutenbefragung 1997)

5.5 Justiz, Strafvollzugskunde, (Re-)Sozialisierung und Psychotherapie von Tätern

5.6 Suchtforschung und -therapie

6. Klinische Psychologie der Traumforschung

7. Forschungsdatenbanken und Publikationsliste

7.1 Vollständige Publikationsliste chronologisch (1983-2023)

7.2 Datenbanken


 © 2024 Henriette Haas •  Kontakt