Psychology of the communicative activity of the investigator. Chapter V. Fundamentals of the psychology of investigative activities. in the course "Legal Psychology"
ABSTRACT
in the course "Legal Psychology"
on the topic: “Psychology of the communicative activity of an investigator”
Introduction
1. Communication activities of the investigator
2. Psychology of the victim and witness
Conclusion
Introduction
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the essence of the accusation and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
1. Communication activities of the investigator
The investigator will have to adequately reflect the positions and real awareness of individuals and create psychological prerequisites for information communication.
The following situations may arise:
1) the interrogated person has the required information, but hides it;
2) the interrogated person has the necessary information, but deliberately distorts it;
3) the interrogated person conveys certain information in good faith, but the information is not adequate to reality (due to distortions of perception and personal reconstruction of the material in the subject’s memory);
4) the person being interrogated does not have the required information.
In order to carry out an objective, complete and comprehensive investigation and obtain adequate information about the event under investigation, the investigator must carry out effective communication activities.
When starting an investigation, the investigator in a number of cases encounters communicative uncertainty.
Here the investigator makes an assumption about the most likely actions of the opposing party. The optimality of investigative decisions depends on the level of reflexivity of the investigator.
By imitating the positions of the opposing party, the possible reasoning of the accused, suspect or dishonest witness trying to mislead the investigation, the investigator reflexively controls their actions.
The mental state of the persons involved in the case is determined by their position in relation to the investigation, the legal status of the person (whether he is an accused, a suspect, a victim or a witness), and their individual psychological characteristics.
The basis for bringing a person to criminal liability is the presence of sufficient evidence for the accusation. To bring charges, the investigator must collect evidence indicating that the act took place, that the factual elements forming it correspond to the elements of the crime, that the crime was committed by the person charged, and there are no circumstances that exclude criminal liability or exempt from it.
The act of bringing charges consists of announcing the charges and explaining to the accused his rights.
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the nature of the charge and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
After a decision is made to charge a person as an accused, the investigator and the accused have a number of procedural rights. The investigator has the right to stop the accused’s attempts to evade criminal liability, prevent the establishment of the truth in the case, announce a preventive measure (arrest, recognizance not to leave the place), remove the accused from office, conduct a search, seize property. Taking into account the behavior of the accused during the investigation and other circumstances, the investigator may decide to change or cancel the preventive measure.
To successfully carry out the preliminary investigation, it is necessary to navigate the personal characteristics of the persons involved in the case and especially the accused and the suspect. The investigator needs to have information about the lifestyle of the accused, his social connections, circle of acquaintances, and living conditions. It is especially important to know the stage factors in the formation of the accused’s personality and significant biographical data. It is necessary to pay attention to the behavioral attitudes and stereotypes of the accused person, his adaptation and communication capabilities, and methods of behavior in conflict situations.
The characteristics of the mental state of the accused (suspect) are largely determined by his attitude to the crime and justice. Social and value-based personal positions are essential, as well as the reflection by the accused (suspect) of the degree of proof of the crime and the state of its investigation.
Depending on these circumstances, two different strategies of behavior may arise, associated either with the desire to avoid trial and fair punishment, or with the awareness of the inevitability of trial (and even its necessity in case of deep repentance).
The first of these behavioral strategies leads to the development of appropriate defensive tactics, the formation in the mind of the accused (suspect) of the so-called “defensive dominant”. These defensive tactics can be active - giving false testimony, destroying physical evidence, creating false evidence, influencing witnesses, and passive - refusing to cooperate with the investigator without using active countermeasures.
The “defensive dominant” of persons opposing the investigation (except for the accused, the suspect, they can be witnesses and even victims) is the main mental phenomenon, the orientation of which is especially important for investigative tactics.
Defense mechanisms for possible resistance to the investigator begin to form when criminal intent arises, and then during the commission of a crime and when concealing its traces. An experienced criminal does everything, in his opinion, possible to hide traces of the crime, to extremely complicate the investigation, to mislead the investigator, and plans a course of action even if the crime is discovered.
The defensive dominant of the accused determines the direction of his mental activity, increased sensitivity to everything that is protected by established defensive positions. But this is the main weakness of the dominant. Every word of the investigator, his actions are involuntarily correlated by the accused with everything that is protected by a protective dominant. In this case, there is a tendency to exaggerate the investigator’s information armament and overestimate threatening influences.
The psychology of interaction between the investigator and the accused (suspect) is also determined by those general characterological features that are inherent in persons committing certain types of crimes. The investigator must take into account that, for example, rapists, as a rule, are distinguished by extreme egoism, primitive anarchic aspirations, rigidity and aggressiveness. In relationships with this category of persons under investigation, possible emotional outbursts and situational conflicts should be anticipated. Along with this, the reduced criticality of their behavior makes long-term, tactically thought-out opposition to the investigator impossible.
A tough stance is necessary against those accused of heinous murder.
When interacting with so-called “accidental” killers, the investigator must comprehensively take into account the unfavorable everyday circumstances in their lives. When interacting with persons prosecuted for rape, the investigator must keep in mind such mental characteristics as shamelessness, extreme vulgarity, unbridled sensuality, and immorality.
The personality of the accused, as a rule, is contradictory - some of their assessments, acquittal, are aimed at themselves, others, accusatory, are aimed at others.
Criminals avoid admitting their guilt. Murderers, robbers, robbers, rapists, thieves, and plunderers for the most part do not internally condemn themselves. Their self-esteem is characterized by low self-criticism and inadequacy. Most criminals do not consider themselves to be typical criminals; they take themselves beyond the boundaries of social responsibility, forming a psychological defense mechanism. In this regard, they become insensitive to information that contradicts their personal attitudes (mechanism of psychological repression), seek reasons to justify their behavior (mechanism of self-justifying rationalization), seek all kinds of personally affirming compensation, and hypertrophy personal positive self-esteem.
A person condemns himself only in cases where he crosses the boundaries of his own behavioral principles.
The social norms violated by the criminal are personally devalued, which is why, as a rule, he does not have a feeling of guilt. But the criminal, while maintaining the value of his self-image, remains therefore sensitive to his own value system; those qualities that he values. Being convicted of dishonesty may not bother him, but being accused of cowardice, cowardice, or betrayal may deeply offend him. All these psychological characteristics of the accused must be taken into account in tactical interaction with them.
The accused's presentation of the factual circumstances of the case must be subject to psychological analysis - it indicates what the accused himself attaches greater importance to, what he avoids, what dominates or is inhibited in his consciousness.
Violent types of criminals, as a rule, are prone to an accusatory interpretation of the actions of others. Most criminals exaggerate the provocative nature of the pre-crime situation and subjectively “strengthen” the circumstances conducive to the crime. It is also necessary to take into account the tendency of the accused to change their positions, adapting their exculpatory position as evidence is presented. It is psychologically important to weaken and find weak points in their defensive position in every possible way. But in a number of cases it is necessary to follow the legend of the accused in order to present decisive evidence against the background of mental contrast, in order to most effectively unmask the accused.
2. Psychology of the victim and witness
The psychological state of the victim can be largely determined by his “accusatory dominant”, negative emotions associated with the damage suffered. These conflict states are often associated with the general conflict of the victim’s personality. Conflicting personality traits can provoke a crime.
On the other hand, an objective study of the damage caused to the victim is a condition for determining the social danger of the committed criminal act.
The testimony of the victim is a means of protecting his interests, but these are not only individual interests, but the interests of the person as a member of society.
The testimony of many victims is oversaturated with evaluative elements, while only factual information has evidentiary value. The attitude of victims to establishing the truth also varies. Along with the desire to help establish the truth, there may be other motives in the behavior of individual victims - from indifference to direct opposition to the investigation.
When the investigator interacts with the victim, his negative emotional state resulting from the crime and its consequences should be taken into account.
The mental states of the victim (especially when violent acts are committed against him) should be classified as extreme mental states (stress, affect, frustration), causing significant shifts in his reflective-regulatory sphere.
In conflict situations, the consciousness of the victim narrows and his adaptive capabilities are limited. The irradiation of excitation leads to generalized (excessively expanded) generalizations and shifts in the interaction of signaling systems. The traumatic impact of events leads to victims exaggerating time intervals (sometimes by 2-3 times). Rough physical influences, being super-strong irritants, cause disturbances in mental activity. However, this does not mean that victims are only capable of misleading the investigation. Many actions committed before the crime, in its preparatory stage, are imprinted in their memory. In many cases, victims remember the signs and actions of the criminal.
The investigator must take into account the mental state of the victims. By revisiting what happened, they actively reconstruct past events; consolidate stable foci of excitation. A complex, stable neuro-emotional complex arises, with complex interactions of feelings of shame, resentment, humiliation, revenge, and sometimes aggressiveness. Victims of sexual violence experience a feeling of depression, apathy, and doom, aggravated by ideas about possible pregnancy and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Often, the testimony of this category of victims is deliberately distorted in order to conceal unseemly acts.
Many victims are characterized by a state of increased anxiety and, as a consequence, destabilization of personal mental integrity and impaired social adaptation.
Repeated reference to affectogenic circumstances can cause a tense mental state and involuntary withdrawal from traumatic circumstances. All this requires special sensitivity, tact and care on the part of the investigator.
Victims often have to participate in numerous interrogations and confrontations, repeatedly go to the scene of the crime, and identify the participants in the crime. Under these conditions, victims may involuntarily form a mechanism of mental defense against repeated psycho-traumatic influences. Intense inhibition processes and their irradiation can significantly complicate obtaining from the victim the information necessary for the investigation. The desire to get out of the investigation can lead to hasty, conforming testimony and agreement with the investigator’s proposals. The possible impact on the victim on the part of the accused should also be taken into account.
The investigator needs to be sensitive to the dynamics of the victim’s mood. The victim’s requests to terminate the case, which are often caused by mental pressure from interested parties, should be subject to especially careful psychological analysis. The transition of the victim from truthful to false testimony is usually indicated by his mental tension, isolation, and formality of speech constructions. In these situations, the investigator must understand who and how could have exerted mental pressure on the victim, reproduce the possible course of reasoning of the interested parties, and show their inconsistency. If necessary, the investigator overcomes the negative mental impact on the suspect from interested parties, calling them for questioning and warning them of criminal liability for inciting the victim to give false testimony or forcing them to give false testimony.
Psychology of witnesses
A feature of the behavior of witnesses in the preliminary investigation (and at trial) is their procedurally regulated obligation to give evidence that is important for the detection and investigation of crimes.
When interacting with witnesses, the investigator must take into account that the direction of perception of an event and its content are determined by the evaluative position of the perceiving person, the level of his mental, intellectual and moral development.
When interacting with the investigator, the witness adheres to a certain line of behavior, gives his assessment of the reported facts, holds back something, and makes omissions. They can be caused by various motives - fear of revenge, pity, desire to get rid of witness duties, etc. Along with this, witness testimony itself is complicated by a number of psychological circumstances - fragmentation of the initial perception of events, mnemonic and speech-expressive difficulties. (The psychology of witnesses will be discussed in more detail in the chapter “Psychology of Interrogation and Confrontation.”)
Psychological contact in investigative activities
In investigative practice, it is especially important to prepare the investigator for communication with persons involved in the case. Having previously become familiar with the personal characteristics of each person involved in the case, the characteristics of his behavior, lifestyle, range of needs and interests, the investigator predicts not only his actions, but also the possible reactions of his communication partner to them, provides for the positions of these persons in relation to the circumstances of the case, significant for investigation, develops strategy and tactics for resolving investigative problems.
The investigator’s communication with the accused (suspect), victims and witnesses is largely formalized and determined by procedural requirements. Both the investigator and each of these persons have their legal status clearly defined.
Interpersonal communication in the preliminary investigation is not an ordinary two-way process - it is unilaterally directed by the authoritative initiative of the investigator within the framework of criminal procedural norms. The formality inherent in this type of communication significantly complicates and constrains the mental activity of persons involved in the case and requires the investigator to have communicative flexibility and the use of special means of enhancing communication.
Any formal-role communication has an individual style that ensures its success or failure. Psychologically, the investigator’s entry into communication and the establishment of primary communicative contacts, which largely determine their further development, are especially significant.
The establishment of communicative contact is determined by the mental state of the contacting persons, their mental mutual adaptation. The basis for establishing communicative contact is the actualization of an emotionally significant subject of communication, which causes the mental activity of communicating persons.
Establishing communicative contact is a complex psychological task, complicated in the preliminary investigation by the negative attitude of individuals towards representatives of justice, weakness, aggressiveness, secrecy, and suspicion.
The position of individual investigators may also be dominated by negative attitudes - an extremely negative attitude towards the antisocial personality of the accused or suspect and associated arrogance, arrogance, a sense of superiority, etc.
Entering into communication with persons involved in a case in forensic psychological literature is often called establishing psychological contact. However, the term “psychological contact” means an emotionally positive relationship based on common interests and unity of goals of communicating persons. Since in legal proceedings the participants in a criminal case do not have a constant unity of goals and interests, it is advisable to replace the term “psychological contact” with the term “communicative contact”, which exempts from the mandatory search for common interests and goals, mutual emotional and positive experiences in the conditions of the preliminary investigation.
The professional quality of an investigator is his ability to neutralize and slow down an emotionally negative attitude towards the accused (suspect). When entering into communication with him, the investigator must adequately reflect the mental state of the interrogated, using probing communicative actions of neutral content.
In this case, two extreme types of mental state of the interrogated person can be detected - sharply excited, emotionally negative (anger, indignation, etc.), depressed (sadness, melancholy, despondency, etc.). Further behavior of the investigator should be based on these conditions, so as not to aggravate the negative mental state of these individuals. Here, inattention, negligence, fussiness, nervousness, emphasized suspicion, feigned gaiety, etc. can cause damage.
The establishment of communicative contact is facilitated by everything that increases the level of mental activity. In most cases, communicative contact in a preliminary investigation is created on the basis of information that can cause an increased indicative reaction. It is necessary to take into account the updated needs of the communication partner, his current dominants, which are determined not so much by the stable personal or professional interests of the person involved in the case, but by the problems associated with the event under investigation.
The accused, suspect, victim and witnesses must see in the investigator an honest, principled, cultured person who knows his business, who does not humiliate their dignity, does not infringe, but protects their rights guaranteed by law.
Establishing communicative contact means, first of all, avoiding everything that could disrupt it. Primitiveness, vulgarity, lack of culture, professional incompetence, and even more so rudeness and mental violence in various forms of manifestation (threat, blackmail, manipulation of false information, infringement of national and religious feelings, etc.) are contraindicated for the investigator.
The entire system of communicative contacts should be built, first of all, on positive personality traits, justice and a humane attitude towards the person under investigation. The most significant point for establishing contact is an accessible and convincing explanation of the legal rights and obligations of a given participant in a criminal case.
Persons under investigation often feel defenseless in the face of impending danger. And from the very beginning the investigator must act as a defender of the law, the rights of the accused, suspect and other persons involved in the case. Of particular importance for the person under investigation is the investigator’s explanation of certain provisions of the law, the disclosure of the opportunities that the accused (suspect) can take advantage of in his position.
The investigator must show himself not as a persecutor, but as a person called upon to help another person, even one who has stumbled. And this should not be ostentatious, but the internal position of the investigator. The behavior of the person under investigation largely depends on the behavior of the investigator. And if the investigator has shown attention to the genuine needs of the person dependent on him, they will always want to establish contact with him.
Persons deprived of their liberty require especially careful attention. Deprivation of liberty is a powerful psychological factor. The limited possibility of action, difficult moral experiences exacerbate the defensive dominant, increase the selective attitude towards all actions of officials, rebuild the entire value-motivational and regulatory sphere of the individual, increase sensitivity to certain most significant influences. The first meeting with the investigator is especially significant, which must comply not only with legal, but also with moral and psychological standards. First of all, it is necessary to avoid conflict interaction.
There is no reason for a negative attitude towards the accused and the suspect of the investigator, especially at the beginning of the investigation - the truth has yet to be established. But even the guilty and convicted person remains a citizen of the state with all the ensuing rights and social status.
The investigator should not have a negative attitude towards the persons under investigation or conflictual interaction with them. There is no general, global conflict between the investigator and the persons under investigation. The investigator’s task is to overcome even temporary conflict situations and in any case achieve the goal of the investigation - to establish the truth about the event under investigation.
Not all opposition to the investigation is a conflict, a positional struggle. Opposition to justice is most often expressed in the untenable tricks of the criminal, to overcome which the investigation has a system of scientifically developed means. Long-term conflicts and struggles can only arise in the practice of unskilled investigators who do not know the tactics of overcoming opposition to the investigation.
Overcoming the resistance of the person under investigation requires professionalism and mastery of appropriate legitimate psychologized techniques. These techniques are clearly different from those of mental violence. The law prohibits the solicitation of testimony from the accused and other persons involved in the case through violence, threats and other illegal measures. Methods of mental violence include suggestive and leading questions, threats, unfounded promises, manipulation of false information, use of base motives, etc. Physical violence against a person is punishable as a criminal offense. Investigative actions for “tactical purposes” (for example, conducting a confrontation in the absence of significant contradictions in the testimony) are strictly unacceptable.
Physical coercion should be distinguished from physical violence. It is permitted by law during arrest, detention, forced examination and obtaining samples for comparative research.
When overcoming opposition, the investigator does not set the task of breaking the opposing personality, belittling her, or winning the fight against her.
Lawful methods of mental coercion should be distinguished from the means and methods of unlawful mental violence associated with obtaining evidence that is favorable to the investigator.
The effective use of means and techniques of mental coercion is the basis of the tactical skills of investigators. All criminal proceedings are based on coercive influences provided for by law in relation to participants in a criminal case. The method of mental coercion is the influence on a person opposing the investigator by creating a situation in which we are found to be hiding; and information to them against his wishes. For example, a tactically targeted system of questions can reveal, beyond the wishes of the person being questioned, facts and details that may only be known to the person involved in the commission of the crime.
The need to rely on positive social connections and the positive qualities of the person opposing the investigator was noted above. Is it acceptable, along with this, to use his negative mental and moral qualities - emotional instability, hot temper, unprincipledness, vanity, vindictiveness, etc. We believe that a means of achieving the truth is acceptable if the person giving evidence remains free to choose his line of behavior . This is the criterion for the legitimacy of mental influence.
Thus, the investigator established that accused II. led an immoral lifestyle, cohabiting with several women at the same time, including K. Knowing that wife II was jealous of her husband for this woman, the investigator took advantage of this circumstance. Before calling P.'s wife for questioning (who had previously denied her knowledge of her husband's criminal activities), the investigator laid out K.'s photographs seized from P. on the table. Having seen them, P.'s wife immediately reported the facts known to her about her husband committing crimes.
Did the investigator have a moral right to such a technique? Didn’t he divulge intimate aspects of the defendant’s life? No, I didn’t disclose it. K.’s photographs could have ended up on his desk for another reason. There was no extortion of testimony from P.’s wife here. The procedural rights and interests of the individual were not violated.
So, when faced with the stubborn denial of the interrogated, the investigator uses “harsh” methods of mental influence, but they should not be associated with the previous position of the investigator. The investigator influences not the content of the testimony, but the motivational sphere of the interrogated person (by explaining the advantages of the legal significance of the available evidence, a special system for their presentation, etc.), and the impact on the anticipated activity of the person evading correct testimony is of significant importance.
All methods of mental influence are acceptable, based on the effect of “blocking” possible deviations of the interrogated person from truthful testimony, when the investigator, anticipating possible deviations, “blocks” them in advance, demonstrates their futility and thereby encourages truthful testimony. Without resorting to misinformation, the investigator can widely use the possibility of a diverse interpretation by the person under investigation of the information available in the case. Each method of legitimate mental influence has its own “super-task”, which is solved by the person under investigation on the basis of the information available to him. The key questions, everything that is most significant for him, is important to “submit” at the moment of his greatest mental activity, but from an unexpected direction. At the same time, the significance of the information received sharply increases - its emotional generalization occurs.
The sequence of questions from the investigator has a psychological impact. In cases where they are associated with genuine events, the impression appears that the investigator is widely aware of these events. But even single questions of independent significance must be comprehensively comprehended by the investigator as a factor of mental influence. Different editions of the same issue may fall on different motivational grounds of the person under investigation.
Accused A. admitted his participation in a group armed attack on Sberbank and testified that B. participated in the commission of the crime, who denied this and demanded a confrontation with A. Will A. at the confrontation speak with B. as one of the gang members ? The investigator did not have such confidence. The resolution of the situation depends on the psychological flexibility of the investigator. In this case, the investigator at the confrontation avoided the question: “Who participated in the attack on Sberbank?”, replacing it with another: “What were you and B. armed with during the attack on Sberbank?”
All tactics have a mental effect, but they should not be violent. The purpose of mental influence. - overcoming attitudes towards opposition, convincing the opposing person of the need for truthful behavior.
The essence of mental influence in legal proceedings is not to instill fear or seduce the person under investigation with unfounded promises, but to convince him by effective means of the advantages of decent, honest behavior.
Techniques of legitimate mental influence create psychological conditions that facilitate the transition from lies to truth for that person. To do this, it is necessary to know the true motives for denial, to overcome the existing negative position of the individual, and to convince him of the inappropriateness of the chosen behavior. At the same time, the investigator influences the positive qualities of the individual. Humiliation of the individual, bringing his negative qualities to the forefront leads to personal confrontation, the individual’s withdrawal from communication that is undesirable for him.
Not to break the will of the person under investigation, but to transform the “evil” will into “good” - this is the psychological super task of the investigator in situations of counteraction.
So, all methods of psychological influence on persons involved in the case must be legal. The use of any methods of mental violence is illegal.
The investigator needs to know a clear line between lawful and unlawful methods of investigation: mental influence is lawful if it does not limit the freedom of expression of the person involved in the case and is not aimed at extorting testimony that is pleasing to the investigator.
Anything that restricts the freedom of expression of the accused, suspect, victim and witness is detrimental to the discovery of the truth and is illegal.
The use of psychic influence on a person participating in a criminal case is lawful if none of the following requirements are violated: psychic influence should not be based on the ignorance of the accused (suspect) or other persons in legal matters; should not humiliate the dignity of the individual and limit the freedom of expression of his will; should not forcibly influence the position of the guilty person, induce him to admit non-existent guilt, to slander the innocent, or to give false testimony.
The investigator must remember that the guarantee of individual rights and legal proceedings is at the same time a guarantee of achieving the truth.
A system of methods of legitimate mental influence on persons opposing the investigation.
What arsenal of means of lawful psychological influence on persons opposing the investigation does the investigator have?
1) familiarization of the opposing person with the system of available evidence, disclosure of their legal significance, conviction of the futility of opposing the investigator; explaining the benefits of sincere repentance;
2) creating in the person under investigation subjective ideas about the volume of evidence, leaving him in the dark regarding the actually available evidence;
3) correcting erroneous ideas about the investigator’s ignorance;
4) creating conditions for the actions of the person under investigation leading to his exposure; temporary indulgence in tricks, the totality of which can have a revealing value;
5) a system of presenting evidence in order of increasing importance, sudden presentation of the most significant, incriminating evidence;
6) the commission by the investigator of actions that allow them to be interpreted in multiple meanings by the person under investigation;
7) use of surprise, lack of time and information for thoughtful counteractions by the opposing party 1;
8) demonstration of the possibilities of objectively establishing hidden circumstances, regardless of his testimony.
The presentation of material evidence and the disclosure of its revealing value and the possibilities of forensic examination have a great psychological impact on the person under investigation.
The investigator takes into account and uses the emotional reactions of the accused to those physical evidence that are significant only for him and are neutral in themselves. Thus, the presentation of shoes and clothes of the murdered person is emotionally significant for the guilty person and neutral for the innocent person. But the role of emotional; reactions in an investigation should not be exaggerated. They can arise for various reasons.
In some cases, the person who is withdrawn may interpret his emotional displays as a “failure” or a betrayal of a “secret.”
For the purpose of legitimate mental influence, it is possible to pose mental tasks to the person under investigation related to the logic of the event under investigation.
Increased mental activity of the accused, if he is involved in the crime under investigation, may be accompanied by acute re-experiencing of individual episodes of the crime.
When inspecting the store from which the theft was committed, the investigator found a woolen blanket on the floor under the window. There were several dents on the blanket, the nature of which suggested that they had tried several times to hang it on a nail hammered into the upper part of the window frame due to the fact that the street lamp well illuminated the interior of the store. Suspicion of theft fell on a certain P. During the interrogation he was The use of the enemy’s lack of time and information should not be interpreted in the spirit of the traditional technique of “taking by surprise.” An analysis of investigative practice shows that the answers obtained when being “taken by surprise” are rarely associated with an involuntary “giveaway” of the truth. In most cases, such “suddenness” does not advance the investigator along the path of knowledge of the truth, but often leads to a breakdown in communication contact. Along with this, the sudden presentation of strong incriminating evidence in a situation that contributes to the destruction of the defensive dominant of the opposing person should be recognized as an effective method of legitimate mental influence.
Only one question was asked: “Do you think the criminal who was trying to curtain the store window was visible to passers-by?” Remembering that the blanket had repeatedly fallen and had to be hung up again, standing at the brightly lit window, P. decided that one of his acquaintances had seen and identified him. Considering himself exposed, P. admitted his guilt.
Many of the methods of influencing a person opposing the investigation are associated with the formation of a certain “image of the investigator.” The investigator must reflect on the reactions of the person under investigation in relation to his actions and the evidence presented, eliminate everything that could lead to even temporary success of the counteraction, strengthen the attitude of denial, and refrain from interacting with the person under investigation in tactically unfavorable situations. In the most tactically favorable situations, the investigator strengthens his legitimate influence, using the mental effect of “accumulation of feelings”
The procedurally regulated activities of the investigator are carried out by a system of investigative actions. These include: detention, interrogation, confrontation, investigative examination, search and seizure, examination, presentation of people and objects for identification, investigative experiment, checking evidence on the spot, obtaining samples for comparative research, etc.
The implementation of each investigative action is regulated by law. Detention, inspection, interrogation and search are urgent investigative actions.
Conclusion
The activities of the investigator are related to his direct interaction with participants in the criminal process. Possible opposition from interested parties requires the investigator to implement certain behavioral strategies, reflectively control the behavior of opposing persons, and use psychologized tactics.
The basis of action here is information processes. However, if at the stage of searching for a criminal, information is primarily extracted from the circumstances of the crime, then when interacting with persons involved in the case, information processes are determined by the mental states of these persons, their position in relation to justice and attitude towards this investigator.
Certain common psychological characteristics are also inherent in persons accused of mercenary and violent crimes. Thus, robberies and assaults are, as a rule, committed by persons with an extreme antisocial and anti-legal orientation. They are characterized by deep immorality and drunkenness. Along with this, in many cases they are distinguished by increased self-control and the ability to sustain tactical counteraction.
Each accused, suspect, victim and witness has their own burning problems, burning questions centered around the case under investigation. They base their contacts with the investigator in terms of their relationship to the crime event. (And here the common recommendations regarding the establishment of “psychological contacts”, which are offered by some lawyers involved in forensic psychology, are unacceptable, when it is proposed to establish “psychological contact” with chess lovers by talking about the intricacies of the Queen’s Gambit, and with a fisherman - about the peculiarities of biting in the autumn-winter season period.)
The investigator’s task is, from the very beginning, to find the basis in the positive social connections that a given individual has, strengthen these connections, and arouse socially positive, civic motives of behavior. The general strategy of the investigator’s behavior does not consist in flirting with the person being interrogated, not in finding any common amateur Interests, but in the worthy implementation by the investigator of his social and civil role and official duty.
Bibliography
1. Baranov P.P., V.I. Kurbatov. Legal psychology. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 2007.
2. Bondarenko T. A. Legal psychology for investigators. M., 2007.
3. Volkov V.N., Yanaev S.I. Legal psychology. M., 2005.
4. Vasiliev V.L. “Legal Psychology”: Textbook - St. Petersburg, 2006.
5. Enikeev M.I. Legal psychology. M., 2006.
6. Psychological techniques in the work of a lawyer. Stolyarenko O.M. M., 2006.
7. Shikhantsov G.G. Legal psychology. M., 2006.
in the course "Legal Psychology"
on the topic: “Psychology of the communicative activity of an investigator”
Introduction
2. Psychology of the victim and witness
Conclusion
Introduction
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the essence of the accusation and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
A feature of the behavior of witnesses in the preliminary investigation (and at trial) is their procedurally regulated obligation to give evidence that is important for the detection and investigation of crimes.
When interacting with witnesses, the investigator must take into account that the direction of perception of an event and its content are determined by the evaluative position of the perceiving person, the level of his mental, intellectual and moral development.
The procedurally regulated activities of the investigator are carried out by a system of investigative actions. These include: detention, interrogation, confrontation, investigative examination, search and seizure, examination, presentation of people and objects for identification, investigative experiment, checking evidence on the spot, obtaining samples for comparative research, etc.
1. Communication activities of the investigator
The activities of the investigator are related to his direct interaction with participants in the criminal process. Possible opposition from interested parties requires the investigator to implement certain behavioral strategies, reflectively control the behavior of opposing persons, and use psychologized tactics.
The basis of action here is information processes. However, if at the stage of searching for a criminal, information is primarily extracted from the circumstances of the crime, then when interacting with persons involved in the case, information processes are determined by the mental states of these persons, their position in relation to justice and attitude towards this investigator.
The investigator will have to adequately reflect the positions and real awareness of individuals and create psychological prerequisites for information communication.
The following situations may arise:
1) the interrogated person has the required information, but hides it;
2) the interrogated person has the necessary information, but deliberately distorts it;
3) the interrogated person conveys certain information in good faith, but the information is not adequate to reality (due to distortions of perception and personal reconstruction of the material in the subject’s memory);
4) the person being interrogated does not have the required information.
In order to carry out an objective, complete and comprehensive investigation and obtain adequate information about the event under investigation, the investigator must carry out effective communication activities.
When starting an investigation, the investigator in a number of cases encounters communicative uncertainty.
Here the investigator makes an assumption about the most likely actions of the opposing party. The optimality of investigative decisions depends on the level of reflexivity of the investigator.
By imitating the positions of the opposing party, the possible reasoning of the accused, suspect or dishonest witness trying to mislead the investigation, the investigator reflexively controls their actions.
The mental state of the persons involved in the case is determined by their position in relation to the investigation, the legal status of the person (whether he is an accused, a suspect, a victim or a witness), and their individual psychological characteristics.
The basis for bringing a person to criminal liability is the presence of sufficient evidence for the accusation. To bring charges, the investigator must collect evidence indicating that the act took place, that the factual elements forming it correspond to the elements of the crime, that the crime was committed by the person charged, and there are no circumstances that exclude criminal liability or exempt from it.
The act of bringing charges consists of announcing the charges and explaining to the accused his rights.
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the nature of the charge and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
After a decision is made to charge a person as an accused, the investigator and the accused have a number of procedural rights. The investigator has the right to stop the accused’s attempts to evade criminal liability, prevent the establishment of the truth in the case, announce a preventive measure (arrest, recognizance not to leave the place), remove the accused from office, conduct a search, seize property. Taking into account the behavior of the accused during the investigation and other circumstances, the investigator may decide to change or cancel the preventive measure.
To successfully carry out the preliminary investigation, it is necessary to navigate the personal characteristics of the persons involved in the case and especially the accused and the suspect. The investigator needs to have information about the lifestyle of the accused, his social connections, circle of acquaintances, and living conditions. It is especially important to know the stage factors in the formation of the accused’s personality and significant biographical data. It is necessary to pay attention to the behavioral attitudes and stereotypes of the accused person, his adaptation and communication capabilities, and methods of behavior in conflict situations.
The characteristics of the mental state of the accused (suspect) are largely determined by his attitude to the crime and justice. Social and value-based personal positions are essential, as well as the reflection by the accused (suspect) of the degree of proof of the crime and the state of its investigation.
Depending on these circumstances, two different strategies of behavior may arise, associated either with the desire to avoid trial and fair punishment, or with the awareness of the inevitability of trial (and even its necessity in case of deep repentance).
The first of these behavioral strategies leads to the development of appropriate defensive tactics, the formation in the mind of the accused (suspect) of the so-called “defensive dominant”. These defensive tactics can be active - giving false testimony, destroying physical evidence, creating false evidence, influencing witnesses, and passive - refusing to cooperate with the investigator without using active countermeasures.
The “defensive dominant” of persons opposing the investigation (except for the accused, the suspect, they can be witnesses and even victims) is the main mental phenomenon, the orientation of which is especially important for investigative tactics.
Defense mechanisms for possible resistance to the investigator begin to form when criminal intent arises, and then during the commission of a crime and when concealing its traces. An experienced criminal does everything, in his opinion, possible to hide traces of the crime, to extremely complicate the investigation, to mislead the investigator, and plans a course of action even if the crime is discovered.
The defensive dominant of the accused determines the direction of his mental activity, increased sensitivity to everything that is protected by established defensive positions. But this is the main weakness of the dominant. Every word of the investigator, his actions are involuntarily correlated by the accused with everything that is protected by a protective dominant. In this case, there is a tendency to exaggerate the investigator’s information armament and overestimate threatening influences.
The psychology of interaction between the investigator and the accused (suspect) is also determined by those general characterological features that are inherent in persons committing certain types of crimes. The investigator must take into account that, for example, rapists, as a rule, are distinguished by extreme egoism, primitive anarchic aspirations, rigidity and aggressiveness. In relationships with this category of persons under investigation, possible emotional outbursts and situational conflicts should be anticipated. Along with this, the reduced criticality of their behavior makes long-term, tactically thought-out opposition to the investigator impossible.
A tough stance is necessary against those accused of heinous murder.
When interacting with so-called “accidental” killers, the investigator must comprehensively take into account the unfavorable everyday circumstances in their lives. When interacting with persons prosecuted for rape, the investigator must keep in mind such mental characteristics as shamelessness, extreme vulgarity, unbridled sensuality, and immorality.
Certain common psychological characteristics are also inherent in persons accused of mercenary and violent crimes. Thus, robberies and assaults are, as a rule, committed by persons with an extreme antisocial and anti-legal orientation. They are characterized by deep immorality and drunkenness. Along with this, in many cases they are distinguished by increased self-control and the ability to sustain tactical counteraction.
The personality of the accused, as a rule, is contradictory - some of their assessments, acquittal, are aimed at themselves, others, accusatory, are aimed at others.
Criminals avoid admitting their guilt. Murderers, robbers, robbers, rapists, thieves, and plunderers for the most part do not internally condemn themselves. Their self-esteem is characterized by low self-criticism and inadequacy. Most criminals do not consider themselves to be typical criminals; they take themselves beyond the boundaries of social responsibility, forming a psychological defense mechanism. In this regard, they become insensitive to information that contradicts their personal attitudes (mechanism of psychological repression), seek reasons to justify their behavior (mechanism of self-justifying rationalization), seek all kinds of personally affirming compensation, and hypertrophy personal positive self-esteem.
A person condemns himself only in cases where he crosses the boundaries of his own behavioral principles.
The social norms violated by the criminal are personally devalued, which is why, as a rule, he does not have a feeling of guilt. But the criminal, while maintaining the value of his self-image, remains therefore sensitive to his own value system; those qualities that he values. Being convicted of dishonesty may not bother him, but being accused of cowardice, cowardice, or betrayal may deeply offend him. All these psychological characteristics of the accused must be taken into account in tactical interaction with them.
The accused's presentation of the factual circumstances of the case must be subject to psychological analysis - it indicates what the accused himself attaches greater importance to, what he avoids, what dominates or is inhibited in his consciousness.
Violent types of criminals, as a rule, are prone to an accusatory interpretation of the actions of others. Most criminals exaggerate the provocative nature of the pre-crime situation and subjectively “strengthen” the circumstances conducive to the crime. It is also necessary to take into account the tendency of the accused to change their positions, adapting their exculpatory position as evidence is presented. It is psychologically important to weaken and find weak points in their defensive position in every possible way. But in a number of cases it is necessary to follow the legend of the accused in order to present decisive evidence against the background of mental contrast, in order to most effectively unmask the accused.
Resonance" (!)), which also includes an assessment of one’s own behavior. 4. Critical assessment of one’s understanding of the situation (doubts). 5. Finally, the use of recommendations from legal psychology (the lawyer takes into account the psychological aspects of the professional actions performed - professional psychological preparedness). Let us now consider psychological analysis of legal facts...
It is necessary that the norms and principles of the Constitution be formulated economically and farsightedly. To do this during the period of reform of the main institutions of the constitutional system of Russia was not an easy task. A psychologist must have knowledge in the field of human rights activities, that is, give a psychological assessment of all investigative actions carried out by the investigator during the preliminary investigation. But...
The activities of the investigator are related to his direct interaction with participants in the criminal process. Possible opposition from interested parties requires the investigator to implement certain behavioral strategies, reflectively control the behavior of opposing persons, and use psychologized tactics.
The basis of action here is information processes. However, if at the stage of searching for a criminal, information is primarily extracted from the circumstances of the crime, then when interacting with persons involved in the case, information processes are determined by the mental states of these persons, their position in relation to justice and attitude towards this investigator.
The investigator will have to adequately reflect the positions and real awareness of individuals and create psychological prerequisites for information communication.
The following situations may arise:
1) the interrogated person has the required information, but hides it;
2) the interrogated person has the necessary information, but deliberately distorts it;
3) the interrogated person conveys certain information in good faith, but the information is not adequate to reality (due to distortions of perception and personal reconstruction of the material in the subject’s memory);
4) the person being interrogated does not have the required information.
In order to carry out an objective, complete and comprehensive investigation and obtain adequate information about the event under investigation, the investigator must carry out effective communication activities.
When starting an investigation, the investigator in a number of cases encounters communicative uncertainty.
Here the investigator makes an assumption about the most likely actions of the opposing party. The optimality of investigative decisions depends on the level of reflexivity of the investigator.
By imitating the positions of the opposing party, the possible reasoning of the accused, suspect or dishonest witness trying to mislead the investigation, the investigator reflexively controls their actions.
The mental state of the persons involved in the case is determined by their position in relation to the investigation, the legal status of the person (whether he is an accused, a suspect, a victim or a witness), and their individual psychological characteristics.
The basis for bringing a person to criminal liability is the presence of sufficient evidence for the accusation. To bring charges, the investigator must collect evidence indicating that the act took place, that the factual elements forming it correspond to the elements of the crime, that the crime was committed by the person charged, and there are no circumstances that exclude criminal liability or exempt from it.
The act of bringing charges consists of announcing the charges and explaining to the accused his rights.
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the nature of the charge and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
After a decision is made to charge a person as an accused, the investigator and the accused have a number of procedural rights. The investigator has the right to stop the accused’s attempts to evade criminal liability, prevent the establishment of the truth in the case, announce a preventive measure (arrest, recognizance not to leave the place), remove the accused from office, conduct a search, seize property. Taking into account the behavior of the accused during the investigation and other circumstances, the investigator may decide to change or cancel the preventive measure.
To successfully carry out the preliminary investigation, it is necessary to navigate the personal characteristics of the persons involved in the case and especially the accused and the suspect. The investigator needs to have information about the lifestyle of the accused, his social connections, circle of acquaintances, and living conditions. It is especially important to know the stage factors in the formation of the accused’s personality and significant biographical data. It is necessary to pay attention to the behavioral attitudes and stereotypes of the accused person, his adaptation and communication capabilities, and methods of behavior in conflict situations.
The characteristics of the mental state of the accused (suspect) are largely determined by his attitude to the crime and justice. Social and value-based personal positions are essential, as well as the reflection by the accused (suspect) of the degree of proof of the crime and the state of its investigation.
Depending on these circumstances, two different strategies of behavior may arise, associated either with the desire to avoid trial and fair punishment, or with the awareness of the inevitability of trial (and even its necessity in case of deep repentance).
The first of these behavioral strategies leads to the development of appropriate defensive tactics, the formation in the mind of the accused (suspect) of the so-called “defensive dominant”. These defensive tactics can be active - giving false testimony, destroying physical evidence, creating false evidence, influencing witnesses, and passive - refusing to cooperate with the investigator without using active countermeasures.
The “defensive dominant” of persons opposing the investigation (except for the accused, the suspect, they can be witnesses and even victims) is the main mental phenomenon, the orientation of which is especially important for investigative tactics.
Defense mechanisms for possible resistance to the investigator begin to form when criminal intent arises, and then during the commission of a crime and when concealing its traces. An experienced criminal does everything, in his opinion, possible to hide traces of the crime, to extremely complicate the investigation, to mislead the investigator, and plans a course of action even if the crime is discovered.
The defensive dominant of the accused determines the direction of his mental activity, increased sensitivity to everything that is protected by established defensive positions. But this is the main weakness of the dominant. Every word of the investigator, his actions are involuntarily correlated by the accused with everything that is protected by a protective dominant. In this case, there is a tendency to exaggerate the investigator’s information armament and overestimate threatening influences.
The psychology of interaction between the investigator and the accused (suspect) is also determined by those general characterological features that are inherent in persons committing certain types of crimes. The investigator must take into account that, for example, rapists, as a rule, are distinguished by extreme egoism, primitive anarchic aspirations, rigidity and aggressiveness. In relationships with this category of persons under investigation, possible emotional outbursts and situational conflicts should be anticipated. Along with this, the reduced criticality of their behavior makes long-term, tactically thought-out opposition to the investigator impossible.
A tough stance is necessary against those accused of heinous murder.
When interacting with so-called “accidental” killers, the investigator must comprehensively take into account the unfavorable everyday circumstances in their lives. When interacting with persons prosecuted for rape, the investigator must keep in mind such mental characteristics as shamelessness, extreme vulgarity, unbridled sensuality, and immorality.
Certain common psychological characteristics are also inherent in persons accused of mercenary and violent crimes. Thus, robberies and assaults are, as a rule, committed by persons with an extreme antisocial and anti-legal orientation. They are characterized by deep immorality and drunkenness. Along with this, in many cases they are distinguished by increased self-control and the ability to sustain tactical counteraction.
The personality of the accused, as a rule, is contradictory - some of their assessments, acquittal, are aimed at themselves, others, accusatory, are aimed at others.
Criminals avoid admitting their guilt. Murderers, robbers, robbers, rapists, thieves, and plunderers for the most part do not internally condemn themselves. Their self-esteem is characterized by low self-criticism and inadequacy. Most criminals do not consider themselves to be typical criminals; they take themselves beyond the boundaries of social responsibility, forming a psychological defense mechanism. In this regard, they become insensitive to information that contradicts their personal attitudes (mechanism of psychological repression), seek reasons to justify their behavior (mechanism of self-justifying rationalization), seek all kinds of personally affirming compensation, and hypertrophy personal positive self-esteem.
A person condemns himself only in cases where he crosses the boundaries of his own behavioral principles.
The social norms violated by the criminal are personally devalued, which is why, as a rule, he does not have a feeling of guilt. But the criminal, while maintaining the value of his self-image, remains therefore sensitive to his own value system; those qualities that he values. Being accused of dishonesty may not bother him, but being accused of cowardice, cowardice, or betrayal may deeply offend him. All these psychological characteristics of the accused must be taken into account in tactical interaction with them.
The accused's presentation of the factual circumstances of the case must be subject to psychological analysis - it indicates what the accused himself attaches greater importance to, what he avoids, what dominates or is inhibited in his consciousness.
Violent types of criminals, as a rule, are prone to an accusatory interpretation of the actions of others. Most criminals exaggerate the provocative nature of the pre-crime situation and subjectively “strengthen” the circumstances conducive to the crime. It is also necessary to take into account the tendency of the accused to change their positions, adapting their exculpatory position as evidence is presented. It is psychologically important to weaken and find weak points in their defensive position in every possible way. But in a number of cases it is necessary to follow the legend of the accused in order to present decisive evidence against the background of mental contrast, in order to most effectively unmask the accused.
The success of the investigation is largely determined by the interaction of the investigator with the persons involved in the case: suspect, accused, victim, witness, etc.
Interpersonal communication is an integral part of the investigator’s activity - his communicative activity.
At all stages of the investigation, mental interaction between the investigator and other participants in the criminal process is carried out. The basis of such interaction is informational and intentional (selectively directed) processes. Each party is a source and recipient of information, on the basis of which the parties evaluate each other and develop appropriate strategies and tactics of behavior. In this case, a wide variety of information is used: the meaning and meaning of speech messages, speech intonations, gestures, facial expressions, pantomime (posture), appearance, emotional and situational reactions, certain psychological phenomena of interpersonal perception arise:
identification - understanding and interpreting a perceived person through identification with him;
socio-psychological reflection - interpretation of the perceived person through reflection about him;
empathy - understanding the perceived person through emotional feeling, empathy for his states;
stereotyping is the assessment of a perceived person by extending to him the qualities inherent in a certain social group.
Interpersonal communication under conditions of investigation is characterized, as a rule, by increased self-control of the communicating persons, a certain mental tension, in some cases an increased level of anxiety, and active reflective activity. The behavior of each party is constantly adjusted based on feedback, and their mental states change.
The mental states of the investigator and persons involved in the case during their interaction are determined by a number of factors.
The mental state of the investigator is determined by his social-role status, personal and professional qualities, information availability in this criminal case, confidence in the methods of achieving goals, and situational influences. The general background state of the investigator during his interaction with persons under investigation is an increased level of mental activity.
The mental state of witnesses, victims, suspects, and accused is determined to a large extent by the attitude towards justice, the committed act, possible punishment, and the awareness of the forced need for communication. The general background mental state of these individuals is mental tension.
Mental states are largely determined by the legal status of a person, that is, whether he is an accused, a suspect, a victim or a witness.
The characteristics of the mental state of the accused and suspect are largely determined by their attitude to the crime event and to justice. In this case, social and value-based personal positions are essential, as well as the suspect’s (accused’s) reflection on the degree of proof of the crime and the state of its investigation. Depending on these circumstances, two different strategies of behavior may arise, associated either with the desire to avoid trial and fair punishment, or with the awareness of the inevitability of trial (and even its necessity in case of deep repentance).
The first of these behavioral strategies leads to the development of appropriate defensive tactics, to the formation in the mind of the suspect (accused) of the so-called “defensive dominant”. These defensive tactics can be active (giving false testimony, destroying physical evidence, creating false evidence, influencing witnesses) or passive (refusing to cooperate with the investigator without actively resisting).
Protective dominant of persons opposing the investigation (they can be, in addition to the accused and suspect, witnesses,
victims) is a basic mental phenomenon, orientation in which is especially important for investigative tactics.
Defense mechanisms for possible resistance to the investigator begin to form when criminal intent arises, and then during the commission of a crime and when concealing its traces. An experienced criminal does everything, in his opinion, possible to hide traces of the crime, to extremely complicate the investigation, and to mislead the investigation. At the same time, a line of conduct is planned in the event of a crime being solved.
However, the weakness of the defensive dominant lies precisely in the fact that it determines the direction of the accused’s mental activity, increased sensitivity to everything that is protected by existing defensive positions.
Every word of the investigator, his actions are involuntarily extrapolated by the accused to the entire system of what is protected by the protective dominant. In this case, there is a tendency to exaggerate the investigator’s information armament and to overestimate the influences that threaten the protective dominant.
The psychology of interaction between an investigator and a suspect (accused) is also determined by those general characterological features that are inherent in persons committing certain types of crimes. The investigator must take into account that, for example, violent criminals, as a rule, are distinguished by extreme egoism, primitive anarchic aspirations, emotional and moral insensitivity, cruelty and aggressiveness. The behavior of criminals in these cases is characterized by thoughtlessness, impulsiveness, the desire for momentary satisfaction of narrowly utilitarian motives, uncritical behavior in general, and its conditioning by rigid attitudinal mechanisms.
When communicating with this category of persons under investigation, one should anticipate possible emotional outbursts and situational conflicts. Along with this, the reduced criticality of their behavior makes long-term, methodically and tactically thought-out opposition to the investigator impossible.
One of the significant factors guiding the investigator’s tactics is the earliest possible identification of the motive for the act committed by a given person. Motives of behavior serve as an indicator of the general orientation of a person, a manifestation of his basic values. Thus, a tougher position is necessary in relation to persons accused of premeditated murder, systematic drunkards, extremely cruel and cynical people.
When interacting with so-called “accidental” killers, the investigator must take into account unfavorable everyday circumstances. Without a comprehensive account of personal factors, he cannot adequately respond to individual behavioral manifestations of these individuals.
When interacting with persons involved in criminal proceedings
responsibility for charges of rape, it is necessary to take into account the general mental characteristics of such persons: shamelessness, extreme vulgarity, licentiousness, sensuality, conscious immorality.
Certain common psychological characteristics are inherent in persons accused of selfish-violent and selfish crimes. Thus, robberies and assaults are, as a rule, committed by persons with an extreme antisocial and anti-legal orientation. They are characterized by immorality and drunkenness. Along with this, they are distinguished by increased self-control and the ability to sustain tactical counteraction.
When interacting with individual members of a criminal group, the investigator must take into account and neutralize their false position of “protected by the group” (“I’m not alone”).
The mental state of the victim can be largely determined by his “accusatory dominant”, negative emotions associated with the damage suffered. These conflict states are often associated with the general conflict of the individual. Conflicting personality traits can sometimes provoke a crime.
On the other hand, an objective determination of what the damage caused to the victim’s personality is, helps to clarify the social danger of the committed criminal act.
The victim's testimony is aimed at protecting his interests, but not as an individual, but as a member of society. However, the testimony of many victims is oversaturated with evaluative elements, while only factual information has evidentiary value.
The attitude of victims to establishing the truth also varies. Along with the desire to help establish the truth, there may be other motives that explain the behavior of individual victims - from indifference to direct opposition to the investigator.
The investigator obtains significant information necessary to solve a crime from witness testimony.
When obtaining information from a witness, the following must be taken into account:
his attitude to the event under investigation and the personality of the accused;
attitude towards justice;
mental state when perceiving the event under investigation;
mental state when giving evidence.
A feature of the behavior of witnesses during the preliminary investigation (and in court) is their procedurally regulated obligation to give evidence necessary to solve the crime.
The investigator must take into account that both the direction of perception and its content are determined by the evaluative position of the perceiver, the level of his mental, intellectual and moral development.
When an investigator interacts with a witness, a certain line of behavior is also implemented in assessing the reported facts. Therefore, it is important to identify the reasons for the witness’s omissions,
omissions. They can be caused by various motives: fear of revenge, pity, desire to get rid of witness duties, etc. Along with this, witness testimony itself is complicated by a number of psychological circumstances: fragmentation of the initial perception of events, mnemonic and speech-expressive difficulties.
The interaction of the investigator with witnesses is carried out, as a rule, in the form of cooperation. The atmosphere of cooperation must be specifically maintained by emphasizing satisfaction with success in communication and showing a positive attitude towards a conscientious witness. In this case, in necessary cases, the investigator provides mnemonic assistance (avoiding any suggestive influences). One should, however, beware of the conformity of the behavior of witnesses who readily answer all the investigator’s questions and mix truth with speculation.
Pseudo-conflicts may arise between the investigator and individual witnesses. If genuine conflicts are based on the contradictory goals of the two parties, then pseudo-conflicts occur when one party has a neutral attitude towards the other in the absence of contradictions in their goals. Pseudo-conflicts arise when there is a reluctance to cooperate for reasons unrelated to the investigation (due to lack of time, lack of understanding of the meaning of cooperation with the investigator, due to a negative attitude towards him due to his low level of behavior, etc.).
It is very important to promptly identify the causes of pseudo-conflict. Inappropriate actions of the investigator in such a situation can lead to the development of a pseudo-conflict into a real conflict, to the formation of a stable negative attitude towards the investigator in a person.
Particularly important is timely, preventive overcoming of the position of giving false testimony. People have great difficulty changing their initial readings. Psychologically, it is very difficult to admit the falsity of previously given testimony.
One of the psychologically difficult tasks is to overcome the mental passivity of individual witnesses and activate their mental activity. It is very important to overcome secrecy, constraint, isolation, and create conditions for the emergence and development of communicative contacts.
Significant psychological knowledge is necessary for the investigator when interacting with minors. It must take into account both the general age characteristics of minors, adolescents and young men, and the psychological characteristics inherent in juvenile offenders.
Of great importance in investigative practice is the preparation of the investigator to communicate with persons involved in the case. You should first familiarize yourself with the personal characteristics of each
of the person involved in the case, the characteristics of his behavior, lifestyle, the range of his needs and interests, predicting not only his own actions, but also possible reactions to them.
When preparing to communicate with persons involved in the case, the investigator first of all predicts their positions regarding the circumstances of the case that are significant for the investigation, develops a strategy and tactics for solving investigative problems.
Communication between the investigator and persons involved in the case is largely formalized and is determined by procedural requirements.
Both the investigator and each person involved in the case have a clearly defined legal status.
Interpersonal communication during the preliminary investigation is not an ordinary two-way process; it is unilaterally directed by the authoritative initiative of the investigator within the framework of criminal procedural norms.
The formality inherent in this type of communication greatly complicates and constrains the mental activity of those involved in the case and requires the investigator to have communicative flexibility and the use of special means of enhancing communication.
Any formal-role communication has an individual style that ensures its success or failure.
Psychologically, the investigator’s entry into communication and the establishment of primary communicative contacts, which largely determine their further development, are especially significant. Communicative contact is the mutual activation of communication with the aim of its further development.
The establishment of communicative contact is determined by the mental state of the persons in contact, their mental adaptation to the communication environment and to the personality of the communication partner. The basis for establishing communicative contact is the actualization of an emotionally significant subject of communication, which causes the mental activity of communicating persons.
Establishing communicative contact is not a simple psychological task; it is complicated during the investigation process by the negative attitude of individuals towards representatives of justice, anger, aggressiveness, secrecy, and suspicion. However, as a rule, there is always an increased interest in the behavior of the investigator.
The position of individual investigators may also be dominated by negative attitudes - an extremely negative attitude towards the antisocial personality of the suspect (accused) and associated arrogance, arrogance, a sense of superiority, etc.
Entering into communication with persons involved in a case in forensic psychological literature is often called establishing psychological contact. However, the term “psychological contact” means an emotionally positive relationship based on common interests and unity of goals of communicating persons. Since
Participants in a criminal case in legal proceedings do not have a constant unity of goals and interests, it is advisable to replace the term “psychological contact” with the term “communicative contact”.
The professional quality of an investigator is his ability to neutralize his emotionally negative attitude towards the suspect (accused).
When entering into communication, the investigator must determine the mental state of the interrogated person, using probing communicative actions of neutral content. Here we can distinguish two extreme types of mental states: sharply excited emotionally negative (anger, indignation, etc.) and depressive-suppressed (sadness, melancholy, despondency, etc.). The investigator's further behavior should be based on these conditions.
Any behavioral acts that aggravate the above-mentioned negative mental states of the suspect (accused) should not be allowed. Equally, the investigator can be harmed by inattention, negligence, fussiness, nervousness, emphasized suspicion, feigned gaiety, etc.
The establishment of communicative contact is facilitated by everything that reduces the level of negative mental states.
In most cases, communicative contact is created not on the basis of everyday trifles, but on the basis of information that can cause an optimal source of excitement. In this case, the updated needs of the communication partner and current dominants should be taken into account. These dominants are determined not so much by the stable personal or professional interests of the person involved in the case, but by the problems associated with the event under investigation.
Each suspect, accused, victim and witness has their own burning problems, burning questions centered around the case under investigation. They plan their contacts with the investigator based on their own attitude to the crime event. (And here the common recommendations of some lawyers are unacceptable, when it is proposed to establish “psychological contact” with a chess lover by talking about the intricacies of the Queen’s Gambit, and with a fisherman - about the peculiarities of biting in the autumn-winter period).
When coming into contact with specific persons under investigation, it is necessary to proceed from the fact that “... the psychological effect of each external action is determined by the history of its development...”1.
The investigator’s task is to rely from the very beginning on the positive social connections of a given individual, strengthen these connections, and awaken citizenship. Therefore, it is best to find significant events in the “development history” of a given personality related to his self-realization, and begin communication based on these events.
The investigator's behavior strategy should not be based on flirting with the person being interrogated or searching for any common amateur interests. The interrogated persons must see in the investigator an honest, principled, cultured person who knows his business, who does not humiliate their personal dignity, does not infringe, but protects their rights guaranteed by law.
Establishing communicative contact is, first of all, avoiding everything that can disrupt it: primitiveness, vulgarity, professional incompetence, and especially rudeness and mental violence (threat, blackmail, manipulation of false information, infringement of national and religious feelings, etc.). The entire system of communicative contacts should be built on positive manifestations of personality, on a fair and humane attitude towards the personality of the person under investigation.
The most significant point for establishing contact is an accessible and convincing explanation of the legal rights and obligations of a given participant in a criminal case.
Suspects (accused) may feel defenseless in the face of impending danger.
And from the very beginning of the investigation, the investigator must act as a defender of the law, including all, without exception, the rights of the accused, suspect and other persons involved in the case. It is especially important for suspects (accused) for the investigator to explain certain provisions of the law and disclose the advantages that they can take advantage of. The investigator must show himself not as a persecutor, but as a person called upon to help another, even a person who has stumbled. And this position should not be ostentatious, but reflect the internal aspirations of the investigator.
The behavior of the suspect (accused) largely depends on the behavior of the investigator. And if the investigator is attentive to the needs of the person dependent on him, and has shown himself to be a worthy citizen, they will always want to establish contact and interact with him.
Persons deprived of their liberty require especially careful attention. Deprivation of liberty is the strongest psychological factor; limited possibility of action, difficult moral experiences aggravate defensive dominants, increase selective attitude towards all actions of officials, rebuild the entire value-motivational and regulatory sphere of the individual, increase sensitivity to certain external influences.
There is no reason for the investigator to have a negative attitude towards the suspect (accused), especially at the beginning of the investigation - the truth has yet to be established. But even the guilty and convicted person remains a citizen of the state and has certain rights.
Situations of investigative communication in conditions of opposition are often called conflict situations2. Conflict as a psychological concept (from the Latin “conflictus” - clash) is
a collision of oppositely directed, incompatible tendencies in the minds of individuals, in interpersonal relationships of individuals or groups of people, associated with acute negative emotional experiences3. At the same time, each conflicting party seeks to harm the other.
The existence of conflicts is possible only if there are conditions for prolonged opposition from the parties.
Undoubtedly, there is no general, global conflict between the investigator and the persons under investigation. The investigator’s task is to overcome even temporary conflict situations and in any case achieve the goal of the investigation - to establish the truth of the event.
Sustainable conflicts are only possible when the parties have equal opportunities. The accused and the suspect do not have any means to maintain the conflict for a long time, while the investigator has an arsenal of opportunities to remove it.
Not all opposition is a conflict, a positional struggle. Opposition to justice is not a conflict or a positional struggle, but an untenable trick of the criminal, to overcome which the investigation has a system of scientifically developed means.
Long-term conflicts and struggles can only arise in the practice of individual unqualified investigators who do not know the tactics of overcoming opposition to the investigation. Overcoming the resistance of the person under investigation requires professionalism and mastery of appropriate techniques that are essentially psychologized. At the same time, mental violence is unacceptable.
The most gross, categorically unacceptable methods of mental violence in legal proceedings are named in Part 3 of Art. 14 Fundamentals of criminal legislation. “It is prohibited to obtain the testimony of the accused and other persons participating in the case through violence, threats and other illegal measures”4. The law does not list all possible illegal measures - they are too diverse, but the very basis of all possible illegal measures of influence - solicitation of testimony - is prohibited.
Methods of mental violence include suggestive and leading questions, threats, unfounded promises, manipulation of false information, use of base motives, etc. Thus, it is categorically unacceptable to carry out investigative actions only for “tactical” purposes (for example, conducting a confrontation in the absence of significant contradictions in the testimony - Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR).
Overcoming opposition, the investigator does not set the task of breaking the will of the suspect (accused). He does not fight it, but exercises social influence on an antisocial personality.
Lawful methods of mental influence should be distinguished from the means and methods of unlawful mental violence associated with the solicitation of evidence needed by the investigator.
The effective use of means and techniques of moral mental influence is the basis of the tactical skill of the investigator. Criminal proceedings are based on the measures of influence provided for by law in relation to participants in a criminal case.
The method of psychological influence is the influence on a person opposing the investigator by creating a situation in which the information he is hiding is revealed against his wishes. Thus, a tactically targeted system of questions can reveal, in addition to the desire of the interrogated, such facts and details that are known only to the person involved in the commission of the crime.
The need to rely on positive social connections and the positive qualities of the person opposing the investigator was noted above. Is it acceptable, along with this, to use negative mental and moral qualities: emotional instability, hot temper, unprincipledness, vanity, vindictiveness, etc.? There are two opposing opinions on this issue in the literature5. From our point of view, it should be answered in the affirmative: a means of achieving the truth is permissible if the person giving evidence remains free to choose his line of behavior. It is important that the technique used does not contain elements of lies, deception, or dishonesty.
Thus, the investigator established that the accused P. led an immoral lifestyle, cohabiting with several women at the same time, including K. Knowing that P.’s wife was jealous of her husband for this woman, the investigator used this circumstance. Before calling P.’s wife for re-interrogation (who had previously denied her knowledge of her husband’s criminal activities), the investigator laid out K.’s photographs seized from P. on his table. Having seen them, P.’s wife immediately reported the facts known to her about the commission of crimes by her husband6 .
Did the investigator have the moral right to use such a technique? Did he not divulge intimate aspects of the life of the person under investigation? No, I didn’t disclose it. K.'s photographs could have ended up on his desk for another reason. There was no extortion of testimony from P.’s wife. The procedural rights and legitimate interests of the individual, provided for in Articles 19, 20, 23, 27, etc. of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, were not violated.
So, when faced with persistent denial, the investigator uses harsh methods of mental influence, but these methods should not be associated with his biased, rigid position. Investigator
influences not the content of the testimony, but the motivational sphere of the interrogated person (by explaining the advantages of a truthful confession, the legal significance of the available evidence, the use of a special system for their presentation, etc.). In this case, the impact on the anticipatory (anticipating) activity of the person evading giving truthful testimony is of significant importance.
All techniques based on the effect of blocking possible evasions of the interrogated person from giving truthful testimony are legal. The investigator, anticipating possible directions of deviation, “blocks” them in advance, demonstrating their futility and thereby encouraging them to give truthful testimony.
Without resorting to misinformation, the investigator can widely use the possibility of a diverse interpretation of the available information by the person being interrogated.
Each method of legitimate mental influence has its own “super-task”, which is solved by the defendant himself on the basis of the information available to him. The key questions, everything that is most significant for him, is important to “submit” at the moment of his greatest mental activity, but from an unexpected direction. At the same time, the significance of the information received sharply increases - its emotional generalization occurs.
Even the sequence of questions has a psychological effect. In cases where they are chronologically associated with genuine events, the investigator appears to be widely aware of them.
But even single questions of independent significance must be comprehensively comprehended by the investigator as a factor of mental influence. Different editions of the same question may fall on different motivational grounds.
Are the methods of psychological influence a manifestation of the investigator’s biased attitude towards the suspect (accused), who is not considered guilty before the court’s verdict? This question should be answered in the negative.
In all spheres of human life, especially where tactical interaction takes place - be it diplomacy or a game, military affairs or crime investigation, there is inevitably a psychological impact of one side on the other.
What arsenal of means of lawful psychological influence on persons opposing the investigation does the investigator have?
familiarizing the opposing person with the system of available evidence, disclosing their legal significance, and convincing them of the futility of counteraction; explaining the benefits of sincere repentance;
creating subjective ideas about the volume of evidence in the interrogated person, leaving him in the dark regarding the actual volume of evidence;
correcting misconceptions about the investigator’s lack of knowledge;
creating conditions for the actions of the person under investigation leading to his exposure; temporary indulgence in tricks, the totality of which can have a revealing value;
a system of presenting evidence in order of increasing importance, sudden presentation of the most important, incriminating evidence;
the investigator commits actions that allow for multiple interpretations.
The investigator must constantly take into account what information the suspect (accused) has about the progress of the investigation, how he reinterprets it and what actions he can take in connection with this.
Reflexive management of the behavior of the opposing person is based on:
analysis of its general adaptation methods;
its rigidity, stereotypedness;
lack of awareness of the investigator’s tactical plans and the extent of his awareness;
using surprise, lack of time and information for thoughtful counteractions7.
The use of the opposing party's lack of time and information should not be interpreted in the spirit of the traditional "taking by surprise" technique. An analysis of practice shows that the answers obtained when “being taken by surprise” are rarely associated with an involuntary “giveaway” of the truth. In the overwhelming majority of cases, such “suddenness” does not advance the investigator along the path of knowledge of the truth, but very often leads to a breakdown in communication contact. Along with this, the sudden presentation of strong incriminating evidence in a situation that contributes to the destruction of the defensive dominant of the opposing person should be recognized as an effective method of legitimate mental influence.
One of the effective means of psychological influence on a person opposing the investigation is to demonstrate the possibilities of objectively establishing hidden circumstances, regardless of his testimony.
Suppose that, while investigating a case of receiving bribes for the sale of Vyatka washing machines, the investigator established two facts that the seller A. received bribes from V. and S. Having familiarized himself with
Based on the installation procedure for these machines, the investigator learned that they require special installation, which is carried out through the appropriate workshop. The investigator told A. how he could identify all the persons to whom A. sold the cars. After this, A. named five more buyers from whom he received bribes.
The presentation of physical evidence and the disclosure to the person under investigation of their revealing value and the possibilities of forensic examination have a great psychological impact. At the same time, the conditions for presenting material evidence and psychological preparation for their adequate perception by the person under investigation are essential.
The investigator also takes into account emotional reactions to those material evidence that are significant only in the system of the given event under investigation and are neutral in themselves. Thus, the presentation of the shoes and clothes of the murdered person is emotionally significant for the guilty person and neutral for the innocent person. However, the role of emotional reactions in the investigation should not be exaggerated. They can occur for various reasons.
At the same time, involuntary emotional reactions and their external expression are assessed by the person under investigation himself, which determines his further behavior. In some cases, he may interpret his emotional manifestations as a “failure”, as giving away a “secret”. And if this is followed by a sincere confession, it means that the tactical method of emotional influence turned out to be effective.
One of the means of legitimate mental influence is setting the person under investigation mental tasks related to the logic of the event under investigation.
The increased mental activity of the suspect (accused) in the case of involvement in a crime can be explained by his awareness of the data that is still unknown to the investigator, acute re-experiencing of individual episodes of the crime.
Thus, during an inspection of the store from which the theft was committed, the investigator found a woolen blanket on the floor under the window. The blanket had several dents, the nature of which suggested that several attempts had been made to hang it on a nail driven into the upper part of the window frame. The need to cover the window arose due to the fact that the street lamp well illuminated the interior of the store.
Suspicion of theft fell on P. During the interrogation, he was asked only one question “for reflection”: “Do you think the criminal who was trying to curtain the window in the store was visible to passers-by?” Remembering that the blanket had repeatedly fallen and had to be hung again against the backdrop of a brightly lit window, P. decided that one of his acquaintances had seen and identified him. Considering himself exposed, he admitted to the theft.
Many methods of influence are associated with the phenomenon of “image” - the formation of a certain “image of the investigator” and “the image of his actions” in the minds of the opposing person. The investigator must reflect on the reactions of the person under investigation in relation to his actions and the evidence presented, eliminate everything that could lead to at least temporary success of the counteraction, to strengthening the attitude of denial, and refrain from interacting with the person under investigation in tactically unfavorable situations. IN
In tactically the most favorable situations, the investigator enhances the impact by synchronizing his actions, using the mental effect of “accumulation of feelings.”
All of the listed tactical methods of psychological coercion are not methods of mental violence, since they allow freedom of expression of the person under investigation and variability in his behavior.
So, the goal of mental influence is to overcome the attitude of opposition, to convince the opposing person of the need to give truthful testimony.
The essence of mental influence in legal proceedings is not to instill fear or seduce the person under investigation with unfounded promises, but to convince him by effective means of the advantages of decent, honest behavior. The tactical techniques of the investigator are not “traps” or “tricks”.
Techniques of legitimate mental influence create psychological conditions that facilitate the opposing person’s transition from lies to truth.
The investigator must find out the true motives for denial, flexibly overcome the existing negative position of the opposing person, convince him of the inappropriateness of the chosen behavioral position, relying on the positive qualities of the individual, and strengthen them in every possible way. Humiliation of a person, bringing to the fore only his negative qualities leads to personal confrontation, to the withdrawal of the person under investigation from communication that is undesirable for him.
Not to break the will of the person under investigation, but to transform “evil will” into “good” - this is the psychological super task of the investigator in situations of counteraction.
The investigator must stop everything that can strengthen the negative motives of the opposing person’s behavior: communication with other counteracting and antisocial persons, receiving information that is undesirable from an investigative and tactical point of view.
The decisive factor in overcoming opposition is the investigator’s ability to recognize false testimony, the ability to reveal the “strategies” of the suspect or accused, and convincingly explain the flawedness of their positions. It is also important to explain the ways of a possible dignified way out of the current specific situation.
So, all methods of psychological influence on persons involved in the case must be legal. The use of any methods of mental violence is illegal.
The investigator must know a clear line between legal and illegal methods of mental influence. Mental influence is legal if it does not limit the freedom of expression of the person involved in the case. Everything that limits the freedom of expression of the suspect, accused, victim and witness,
“pulls” their testimony into the desired direction of the investigator’s previously established attitudes, harms the disclosure of the truth and is illegal.
A tactical method of psychological influence on a person involved in a case is legal if none of the three requirements are violated:
the admission is not based on the ignorance of the suspect (accused) or other persons in legal matters;
the reception does not humiliate the dignity of the individual and does not limit the freedom of expression of his will;
the technique does not affect the position of the innocent, does not encourage him to admit non-existent guilt, to slander the innocent, or to give false testimony.
ABSTRACT
in the course "Legal Psychology"
on the topic: “Psychology of the communicative activity of an investigator”
INTRODUCTION
1. Communication activities of the investigator
2. Psychology of the victim and witness
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the essence of the accusation and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
1 . Communicative activity of the investigator
The investigator will have to adequately reflect the positions and real awareness of individuals and create psychological prerequisites for information communication.
The following situations may arise:
1) the interrogated person has the required information, but hides it;
2) the interrogated person has the necessary information, but deliberately distorts it;
3) the interrogated person conveys certain information in good faith, but the information is not adequate to reality (due to distortions of perception and personal reconstruction of the material in the subject’s memory);
4) the person being interrogated does not have the required information.
In order to carry out an objective, complete and comprehensive investigation and obtain adequate information about the event under investigation, the investigator must carry out effective communication activities.
When starting an investigation, the investigator in a number of cases encounters communicative uncertainty.
Here the investigator makes an assumption about the most likely actions of the opposing party. The optimality of investigative decisions depends on the level of reflexivity of the investigator.
By imitating the positions of the opposing party, the possible reasoning of the accused, suspect or dishonest witness trying to mislead the investigation, the investigator reflexively controls their actions.
The mental state of the persons involved in the case is determined by their position in relation to the investigation, the legal status of the person (whether he is an accused, a suspect, a victim or a witness), and their individual psychological characteristics.
The basis for bringing a person to criminal liability is the presence of sufficient evidence for the accusation. To bring charges, the investigator must collect evidence indicating that the act took place, that the factual elements forming it correspond to the elements of the crime, that the crime was committed by the person charged, and there are no circumstances that exclude criminal liability or exempt from it.
The act of bringing charges consists of announcing the charges and explaining to the accused his rights.
From a psychological perspective, it is important that the explanation of the nature of the charge and the procedural rights of the accused be done in simple, accessible language. It is necessary to obtain answers to all questions asked of the accused and to obtain his confirmation that he understands the charge against him.
After a decision is made to charge a person as an accused, the investigator and the accused have a number of procedural rights. The investigator has the right to stop the accused’s attempts to evade criminal liability, prevent the establishment of the truth in the case, announce a preventive measure (arrest, recognizance not to leave the place), remove the accused from office, conduct a search, seize property. Taking into account the behavior of the accused during the investigation and other circumstances, the investigator may decide to change or cancel the preventive measure.
To successfully carry out the preliminary investigation, it is necessary to navigate the personal characteristics of the persons involved in the case and especially the accused and the suspect. The investigator needs to have information about the lifestyle of the accused, his social connections, circle of acquaintances, and living conditions. It is especially important to know the stage factors in the formation of the accused’s personality and significant biographical data. It is necessary to pay attention to the behavioral attitudes and stereotypes of the accused person, his adaptation and communication capabilities, and methods of behavior in conflict situations.
The characteristics of the mental state of the accused (suspect) are largely determined by his attitude to the crime and justice. Social and value-based personal positions are essential, as well as the reflection by the accused (suspect) of the degree of proof of the crime and the state of its investigation.
Depending on these circumstances, two different strategies of behavior may arise, associated either with the desire to avoid trial and fair punishment, or with the awareness of the inevitability of trial (and even its necessity in case of deep repentance).
The first of these behavioral strategies leads to the development of appropriate defensive tactics, the formation in the mind of the accused (suspect) of the so-called “defensive dominant”. These defensive tactics can be active - giving false testimony, destroying physical evidence, creating false evidence, influencing witnesses, and passive - refusing to cooperate with the investigator without using active countermeasures.
The “defensive dominant” of persons opposing the investigation (except for the accused, the suspect, they can be witnesses and even victims) is the main mental phenomenon, the orientation of which is especially important for investigative tactics.
Defense mechanisms for possible resistance to the investigator begin to form when criminal intent arises, and then during the commission of a crime and when concealing its traces. An experienced criminal does everything, in his opinion, possible to hide traces of the crime, to extremely complicate the investigation, to mislead the investigator, and plans a course of action even if the crime is discovered.
The defensive dominant of the accused determines the direction of his mental activity, increased sensitivity to everything that is protected by established defensive positions. But this is the main weakness of the dominant. Every word of the investigator, his actions are involuntarily correlated by the accused with everything that is protected by a protective dominant. In this case, there is a tendency to exaggerate the investigator’s information armament and overestimate threatening influences.
The psychology of interaction between the investigator and the accused (suspect) is also determined by those general characterological features that are inherent in persons committing certain types of crimes. The investigator must take into account that, for example, rapists, as a rule, are distinguished by extreme egoism, primitive anarchic aspirations, rigidity and aggressiveness. In relationships with this category of persons under investigation, possible emotional outbursts and situational conflicts should be anticipated. Along with this, the reduced criticality of their behavior makes long-term, tactically thought-out opposition to the investigator impossible.
A tough stance is necessary against those accused of heinous murder.
When interacting with so-called “accidental” killers, the investigator must comprehensively take into account the unfavorable everyday circumstances in their lives. When interacting with persons prosecuted for rape, the investigator must keep in mind such mental characteristics as shamelessness, extreme vulgarity, unbridled sensuality, and immorality.
The personality of the accused, as a rule, is contradictory - some of their assessments, acquittal, are aimed at themselves, others, accusatory, are aimed at others.
Criminals avoid admitting their guilt. Murderers, robbers, robbers, rapists, thieves, and plunderers for the most part do not internally condemn themselves. Their self-esteem is characterized by low self-criticism and inadequacy. Most criminals do not consider themselves to be typical criminals; they take themselves beyond the boundaries of social responsibility, forming a psychological defense mechanism. In this regard, they become insensitive to information that contradicts their personal attitudes (mechanism of psychological repression), seek reasons to justify their behavior (mechanism of self-justifying rationalization), seek all kinds of personally affirming compensation, and hypertrophy personal positive self-esteem.
A person condemns himself only in cases where he crosses the boundaries of his own behavioral principles.
The social norms violated by the criminal are personally devalued, which is why, as a rule, he does not have a feeling of guilt. But the criminal, while maintaining the value of his self-image, remains therefore sensitive to his own value system; those qualities that he values. Being accused of dishonesty may not bother him, but being accused of cowardice, cowardice, or betrayal may deeply offend him. All these psychological characteristics of the accused must be taken into account in tactical interaction with them.
The accused's presentation of the factual circumstances of the case must be subject to psychological analysis - it indicates what the accused himself attaches greater importance to, what he avoids, what dominates or is inhibited in his consciousness.
Violent types of criminals, as a rule, are prone to an accusatory interpretation of the actions of others. Most criminals exaggerate the provocative nature of the pre-crime situation and subjectively “strengthen” the circumstances conducive to the crime. It is also necessary to take into account the tendency of the accused to change their positions, adapting their exculpatory position as evidence is presented. It is psychologically important to weaken and find weak points in their defensive position in every possible way. But in a number of cases it is necessary to follow the legend of the accused in order to present decisive evidence against the background of mental contrast, in order to most effectively unmask the accused.
2 . Psychology of the victimand witness
The psychological state of the victim can be largely determined by his “accusatory dominant”, negative emotions associated with the damage suffered. These conflict states are often associated with the general conflict of the victim’s personality. Conflicting personality traits can provoke a crime.
On the other hand, an objective study of the damage caused to the victim is a condition for determining the social danger of the committed criminal act.
The testimony of the victim is a means of protecting his interests, but these are not only individual interests, but the interests of the person as a member of society.
The testimony of many victims is oversaturated with evaluative elements, while only factual information has evidentiary value. The attitude of victims to establishing the truth also varies. Along with the desire to help establish the truth, there may be other motives in the behavior of individual victims - from indifference to direct opposition to the investigation.
When the investigator interacts with the victim, his negative emotional state resulting from the crime and its consequences should be taken into account.
The mental states of the victim (especially when violent acts are committed against him) should be classified as extreme mental states (stress, affect, frustration), causing significant shifts in his reflective-regulatory sphere.
In conflict situations, the consciousness of the victim narrows and his adaptive capabilities are limited. The irradiation of excitation leads to generalized (excessively expanded) generalizations and shifts in the interaction of signaling systems. The traumatic impact of events leads to victims exaggerating time intervals (sometimes by 2-3 times). Rough physical influences, being super-strong irritants, cause disturbances in mental activity. However, this does not mean that victims are only capable of misleading the investigation. Many actions committed before the crime, in its preparatory stage, are imprinted in their memory. In many cases, victims remember the signs and actions of the criminal.
The investigator must take into account the mental state of the victims. By revisiting what happened, they actively reconstruct past events; consolidate stable foci of excitation. A complex, stable neuro-emotional complex arises, with complex interactions of feelings of shame, resentment, humiliation, revenge, and sometimes aggressiveness. Victims of sexual violence experience a feeling of depression, apathy, and doom, aggravated by ideas about possible pregnancy and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Often, the testimony of this category of victims is deliberately distorted in order to conceal unseemly acts.
Many victims are characterized by a state of increased anxiety and, as a consequence, destabilization of personal mental integrity and impaired social adaptation.
Repeated reference to affectogenic circumstances can cause a tense mental state and involuntary withdrawal from traumatic circumstances. All this requires special sensitivity, tact and care on the part of the investigator.
Victims often have to participate in numerous interrogations and confrontations, repeatedly go to the scene of the crime, and identify the participants in the crime. Under these conditions, victims may involuntarily form a mechanism of mental defense against repeated psycho-traumatic influences. Intense inhibition processes and their irradiation can significantly complicate obtaining from the victim the information necessary for the investigation. The desire to get out of the investigation can lead to hasty, conforming testimony and agreement with the investigator’s proposals. The possible impact on the victim on the part of the accused should also be taken into account.
The investigator needs to be sensitive to the dynamics of the victim’s mood. The victim’s requests to terminate the case, which are often caused by mental pressure from interested parties, should be subject to especially careful psychological analysis. The transition of the victim from truthful to false testimony is usually indicated by his mental tension, isolation, and formality of speech constructions. In these situations, the investigator must understand who and how could have exerted mental pressure on the victim, reproduce the possible course of reasoning of the interested parties, and show their inconsistency. If necessary, the investigator overcomes the negative mental impact on the suspect from interested parties, calling them for questioning and warning them of criminal liability for inciting the victim to give false testimony or forcing them to give false testimony.
Psychology of witnesses
A feature of the behavior of witnesses in the preliminary investigation (and at trial) is their procedurally regulated obligation to give evidence that is important for the detection and investigation of crimes.
When interacting with witnesses, the investigator must take into account that the direction of perception of an event and its content are determined by the evaluative position of the perceiving person, the level of his mental, intellectual and moral development.
When interacting with the investigator, the witness adheres to a certain line of behavior, gives his assessment of the reported facts, holds back something, and makes omissions. They can be caused by various motives - fear of revenge, pity, desire to get rid of witness duties, etc. Along with this, testimony itself is complicated by a number of psychological circumstances - fragmentation of the initial perception of events, mnemonic and speech-expressive difficulties. (The psychology of witnesses will be discussed in more detail in the chapter “Psychology of Interrogation and Confrontation.”)
Psychological contact in investigative activities
In investigative practice, it is especially important to prepare the investigator for communication with persons involved in the case. Having previously become familiar with the personal characteristics of each person involved in the case, the characteristics of his behavior, lifestyle, range of needs and interests, the investigator predicts not only his actions, but also the possible reactions of his communication partner to them, provides for the positions of these persons in relation to the circumstances of the case, significant for investigation, develops strategy and tactics for resolving investigative problems.
The investigator’s communication with the accused (suspect), victims and witnesses is largely formalized and determined by procedural requirements. Both the investigator and each of these persons have their legal status clearly defined.
Interpersonal communication in the preliminary investigation is not an ordinary two-way process - it is unilaterally directed by the authoritative initiative of the investigator within the framework of criminal procedural norms. The formality inherent in this type of communication significantly complicates and constrains the mental activity of persons involved in the case and requires the investigator to have communicative flexibility and the use of special means of enhancing communication.
Any formal-role communication has an individual style that ensures its success or failure. Psychologically, the investigator’s entry into communication and the establishment of primary communicative contacts, which largely determine their further development, are especially significant.
The establishment of communicative contact is determined by the mental state of the contacting persons, their mental mutual adaptation. The basis for establishing communicative contact is the actualization of an emotionally significant subject of communication, which causes the mental activity of communicating persons.
Establishing communicative contact is a complex psychological task, complicated in the preliminary investigation by the negative attitude of individuals towards representatives of justice, weakness, aggressiveness, secrecy, and suspicion.
The position of individual investigators may also be dominated by negative attitudes - an extremely negative attitude towards the antisocial personality of the accused or suspect and associated arrogance, arrogance, a sense of superiority, etc.
Entering into communication with persons involved in a case in forensic psychological literature is often called establishing psychological contact. Moreover, the term “psychological contact” means an emotionally positive relationship based on common interests and unity of goals of communicating persons. Since in legal proceedings the participants in a criminal case do not have a constant unity of goals and interests, it is advisable to replace the term “psychological contact” with the term “communicative contact”, which exempts from the mandatory search for common interests and goals, mutual emotional and positive experiences in the conditions of the preliminary investigation.
The professional quality of an investigator is his ability to neutralize and slow down an emotionally negative attitude towards the accused (suspect). When entering into communication with him, the investigator must adequately reflect the mental state of the interrogated, using probing communicative actions of neutral content.
In this case, two extreme types of mental state of the interrogated person can be detected - sharply excited, emotionally negative (anger, indignation, etc.), depressed (sadness, melancholy, despondency, etc.). Further behavior of the investigator should be based on these conditions, so as not to aggravate the negative mental state of these individuals. Here, inattention, negligence, fussiness, nervousness, emphasized suspicion, feigned gaiety, etc. can cause damage.
The establishment of communicative contact is facilitated by everything that increases the level of mental activity. In most cases, communicative contact in a preliminary investigation is created on the basis of information that can cause an increased indicative reaction. It is necessary to take into account the updated needs of the communication partner, his current dominants, which are determined not so much by the stable personal or professional interests of the person involved in the case, but by the problems associated with the event under investigation.
The accused, suspect, victim and witnesses must see in the investigator an honest, principled, cultured person who knows his business, who does not humiliate their dignity, does not infringe, but protects their rights guaranteed by law.
Establishing a communicative contact means, first of all, avoiding everything that could disrupt it. Primitiveness, vulgarity, lack of culture, professional incompetence, and even more so rudeness and mental violence in various forms of manifestation (threat, blackmail, manipulation of false information, infringement of national and religious feelings, etc.) are contraindicated for the investigator.
The entire system of communicative contacts should be built, first of all, on positive personality traits, justice and a humane attitude towards the person under investigation. The most significant point for establishing contact is an accessible and convincing explanation of the legal rights and obligations of a given participant in a criminal case.
Persons under investigation often feel defenseless in the face of impending danger. And from the very beginning the investigator must act as a defender of the law, the rights of the accused, suspect and other persons involved in the case. Of particular importance for the person under investigation is the investigator’s explanation of certain provisions of the law, the disclosure of the opportunities that the accused (suspect) can take advantage of in his position.
The investigator must show himself not as a persecutor, but as a person called upon to help another person, even one who has stumbled. And this should not be ostentatious, but the internal position of the investigator. The behavior of the person under investigation largely depends on the behavior of the investigator. And if the investigator has shown attention to the genuine needs of the person dependent on him, they will always want to establish contact with him.
Persons deprived of their liberty require especially careful attention. Deprivation of freedom is a powerful psychological factor. The limited possibility of action, difficult moral experiences exacerbate the defensive dominant, increase the selective attitude towards all actions of officials, rebuild the entire value-motivational and regulatory sphere of the individual, increase sensitivity to certain most significant influences. The first meeting with the investigator is especially significant, which must comply not only with legal, but also with moral and psychological standards. First of all, it is necessary to avoid conflict interaction.
There is no reason for a negative attitude towards the accused and the suspect of the investigator, especially at the beginning of the investigation - the truth has yet to be established. But even the guilty and convicted person remains a citizen of the state with all the ensuing rights and social status.
The investigator should not have a negative attitude towards the persons under investigation or conflictual interaction with them. There is no general, global conflict between the investigator and the persons under investigation. The investigator’s task is to overcome even temporary conflict situations and in any case achieve the goal of the investigation - to establish the truth about the event under investigation.
Not all opposition to the investigation is a conflict, a positional struggle. Opposition to justice is most often expressed in the untenable tricks of the criminal, to overcome which the investigation has a system of scientifically developed means. Long-term conflicts and struggles can only arise in the practice of unskilled investigators who do not know the tactics of overcoming opposition to the investigation.
Overcoming the resistance of the person under investigation requires professionalism and mastery of appropriate legitimate psychologized techniques. These techniques are clearly different from those of mental violence. The law prohibits the solicitation of testimony from the accused and other persons involved in the case through violence, threats and other illegal measures. Methods of mental violence include suggestive and leading questions, threats, unfounded promises, manipulation of false information, use of base motives, etc. Physical violence against a person is punishable as a criminal offense. Investigative actions for “tactical purposes” (for example, conducting a confrontation in the absence of significant contradictions in the testimony) are strictly unacceptable.
Physical coercion should be distinguished from physical violence. It is permitted by law during arrest, detention, forced examination and obtaining samples for comparative research.
When overcoming opposition, the investigator does not set the task of breaking the opposing personality, belittling her, or winning the fight against her.
Lawful methods of mental coercion should be distinguished from the means and methods of unlawful mental violence associated with obtaining evidence that is favorable to the investigator.
The effective use of means and techniques of mental coercion is the basis of the tactical skills of investigators. All criminal proceedings are based on coercive influences provided for by law in relation to participants in a criminal case. The method of mental coercion is the influence on a person opposing the investigator by creating a situation in which we are found to be hiding; and information to them against his wishes. For example, a tactically targeted system of questions can reveal, beyond the wishes of the person being questioned, facts and details that may only be known to the person involved in the commission of the crime.
The need to rely on positive social connections and the positive qualities of the person opposing the investigator was noted above. Is it acceptable, along with this, to use his negative mental and moral qualities - emotional instability, hot temper, unprincipledness, vanity, vindictiveness, etc. We believe that the means of achieving the truth is acceptable if the person giving testimony remains free to choose his line behavior. This is the criterion for the legitimacy of mental influence.
Thus, the investigator established that accused II. led an immoral lifestyle, cohabiting with several women at the same time, including K. Knowing that wife II was jealous of her husband for this woman, the investigator took advantage of this circumstance. Before calling P.'s wife for questioning (who had previously denied her knowledge of her husband's criminal activities), the investigator laid out K.'s photographs seized from P. on the table. Having seen them, P.'s wife immediately reported the facts known to her about her husband committing crimes.
Did the investigator have a moral right to such a technique? At the same time, did he not divulge the intimate aspects of the defendant’s life? No, I didn’t disclose it. K.’s photographs could have ended up on his desk for another reason. There was no extortion of testimony from P.’s wife here. The procedural rights and interests of the individual were not violated.
So, when faced with the stubborn denial of the interrogated, the investigator uses “harsh” methods of mental influence, but they should not be associated with the previous position of the investigator. The investigator influences not the content of the testimony, but the motivational sphere of the interrogated (by explaining the advantages of the legal significance of the available evidence, a special system for their presentation, etc.); in all this, the impact on the anticipated activity of the person evading correct testimony is essential.
All methods of mental influence are acceptable, based on the effect of “blocking” possible deviations of the interrogated person from truthful testimony, when the investigator, anticipating possible deviations, “blocks” them in advance, demonstrates their futility and thereby encourages truthful testimony. Without resorting to misinformation, the investigator can widely use the possibility of a diverse interpretation by the person under investigation of the information available in the case. Each method of legitimate mental influence has its own “super-task”, which is solved by the person under investigation on the basis of the information available to him. The key questions, everything that is most significant for him, is important to “submit” at the moment of his greatest mental activity, but from an unexpected direction. At the same time, the significance of the information received sharply increases - its emotional generalization occurs.
The sequence of questions from the investigator has a psychological impact. In cases where they are associated with genuine events, the impression appears that the investigator is widely aware of these events. But even single questions of independent significance must be comprehensively comprehended by the investigator as a factor of mental influence. Different editions of the same issue may fall on different motivational grounds of the person under investigation.
Accused A. admitted his participation in a group armed attack on Sberbank and testified that B. participated in the commission of the crime, who denied this and demanded a confrontation with A. Will A. at the confrontation speak with B. as one of the gang members ? The investigator did not have such confidence. The resolution of the situation depends on the psychological flexibility of the investigator. In this case, the investigator at the confrontation avoided the question: “Who participated in the attack on Sberbank?”, replacing it with another: “What were you and B. armed with during the attack on Sberbank?”
All tactics have a mental effect, but they should not be violent. The purpose of mental influence. - overcoming attitudes towards opposition, convincing the opposing person of the need for truthful behavior.
The essence of mental influence in legal proceedings is not to instill fear or seduce the person under investigation with unfounded promises, but to convince him by effective means of the advantages of decent, honest behavior.
Techniques of legitimate mental influence create psychological conditions that facilitate the transition from lies to truth for that person. To do this, it is necessary to know the true motives for denial, to overcome the existing negative position of the individual, and to convince him of the inappropriateness of the chosen behavior. At the same time, the investigator influences the positive qualities of the individual. Humiliation of the individual, bringing his negative qualities to the forefront leads to personal confrontation, the individual’s withdrawal from communication that is undesirable for him.
Not to break the will of the person under investigation, but to transform the “evil” will into “good” - this is the psychological super task of the investigator in situations of counteraction.
So, all methods of psychological influence on persons involved in the case must be legal. The use of any methods of mental violence is illegal.
The investigator needs to know a clear line between lawful and unlawful methods of investigation: mental influence is lawful if it does not limit the freedom of expression of the person involved in the case and is not aimed at extorting testimony that is pleasing to the investigator.
Anything that restricts the freedom of expression of the accused, suspect, victim and witness is detrimental to the discovery of the truth and is illegal.
The use of psychic influence on a person participating in a criminal case is lawful if none of the following requirements are violated: psychic influence should not be based on the ignorance of the accused (suspect) or other persons in legal matters; should not humiliate the dignity of the individual and limit the freedom of expression of his will; should not forcibly influence the position of the guilty person, induce him to admit non-existent guilt, to slander the innocent, or to give false testimony.
The investigator must remember that the guarantee of individual rights and legal proceedings is at the same time a guarantee of achieving the truth.
A system of methods of legitimate mental influence on persons opposing the investigation.
What arsenal of means of lawful psychological influence on persons opposing the investigation does the investigator have?
1) familiarization of the opposing person with the system of available evidence, disclosure of their legal significance, conviction of the futility of opposing the investigator; explaining the benefits of sincere repentance;
2) creating in the person under investigation subjective ideas about the volume of evidence, leaving him in the dark regarding the actually available evidence;
3) correcting erroneous ideas about the investigator’s ignorance;
creating conditions for the actions of the person under investigation leading to his exposure; temporary indulgence in tricks, the totality of which can have a revealing value;
a system of presenting evidence in order of increasing importance, sudden presentation of the most significant, incriminating evidence;
6) the commission by the investigator of actions that allow them to be interpreted in multiple meanings by the person under investigation;
7) use of surprise, lack of time and information for thoughtful counteractions by the opposing party 1;
8) demonstration of the possibilities of objectively establishing hidden circumstances, regardless of his testimony.
The presentation of material evidence and the disclosure of its revealing value and the possibilities of forensic examination have a great psychological impact on the person under investigation.
The investigator takes into account and uses the emotional reactions of the accused to those physical evidence that are significant only for him and are neutral in themselves. Thus, the presentation of shoes and clothes of the murdered person is emotionally significant for the guilty person and neutral for the innocent person. But the role of emotional; reactions in an investigation should not be exaggerated. They can arise for various reasons.
In some cases, the person who is withdrawn may interpret his emotional displays as a “failure” or a betrayal of a “secret.”
For the purpose of legitimate mental influence, it is possible to pose mental tasks to the person under investigation related to the logic of the event under investigation.
Increased mental activity of the accused, if he is involved in the crime under investigation, may be accompanied by acute re-experiencing of individual episodes of the crime.
When inspecting the store from which the theft was committed, the investigator found a woolen blanket on the floor under the window. There were several dents on the blanket, the nature of which suggested that they had tried several times to hang it on a nail hammered into the upper part of the window frame due to the fact that the street lamp well illuminated the interior of the store. Suspicion of theft fell on a certain P. During the interrogation he was The use of the enemy’s lack of time and information should not be interpreted in the spirit of the traditional technique of “taking by surprise.” An analysis of investigative practice shows that the answers obtained when being “taken by surprise” are rarely associated with an involuntary “giveaway” of the truth. In most cases, such “suddenness” does not advance the investigator along the path of knowledge of the truth, but often leads to a breakdown in communication contact. Along with this, the sudden presentation of strong incriminating evidence in a situation that contributes to the destruction of the defensive dominant of the opposing person should be recognized as an effective method of legitimate mental influence.
Only one question was asked: “Do you think the criminal who was trying to curtain the store window was visible to passers-by?” Remembering that the blanket had repeatedly fallen and had to be hung up again, standing at the brightly lit window, P. decided that one of his acquaintances had seen and identified him. Considering himself exposed, P. admitted his guilt.
Many of the methods of influencing a person opposing the investigation are associated with the formation of a certain “image of the investigator.” The investigator must reflect on the reactions of the person under investigation in relation to his actions and the evidence presented, eliminate everything that could lead to even temporary success of the counteraction, strengthen the attitude of denial, and refrain from interacting with the person under investigation in tactically unfavorable situations. In the most tactically favorable situations, the investigator strengthens his legitimate influence, using the mental effect of “accumulation of feelings”
The procedurally regulated activities of the investigator are carried out by a system of investigative actions. These include: detention, interrogation, confrontation, investigative examination, search and seizure, examination, presentation of people and objects for identification, investigative experiment, checking evidence on the spot, obtaining samples for comparative research, etc.
The implementation of each investigative action is regulated by law. Detention, inspection, interrogation and search are urgent investigative actions.
Conclusion
The activities of the investigator are related to his direct interaction with participants in the criminal process. Possible opposition from interested parties requires the investigator to implement certain behavioral strategies, reflectively control the behavior of opposing persons, and use psychologized tactics.
The basis of action here is information processes. Moreover, if at the stage of searching for a criminal, information is primarily extracted from the circumstances of the crime, then when interacting with persons involved in the case, information processes are determined by the mental states of these persons, their position in relation to justice and attitude towards this investigator.
Certain common psychological characteristics are also inherent in persons accused of mercenary and violent crimes. Thus, robberies and assaults are, as a rule, committed by persons with an extreme antisocial and anti-legal orientation. They are characterized by deep immorality and drunkenness. Along with this, in many cases they are distinguished by increased self-control and the ability to sustain tactical counteraction.
Each accused, suspect, victim and witness has their own burning problems, burning questions centered around the case under investigation. They base their contacts with the investigator in terms of their relationship to the crime event. (And here the common recommendations regarding the establishment of “psychological contacts”, which are offered by some lawyers involved in forensic psychology, are unacceptable, when it is proposed to establish “psychological contact” with chess lovers by talking about the intricacies of the Queen’s Gambit, and with a fisherman - about the peculiarities of biting in the autumn - winter period.)
The investigator’s task is, from the very beginning, to find the basis in the positive social connections that a given individual has, strengthen these connections, and arouse socially positive, civic motives of behavior. The general strategy of the investigator’s behavior does not consist in flirting with the person being interrogated, not in finding any common amateur Interests, but in the worthy implementation by the investigator of his social and civil role and official duty.
1. Baranov P.P., V.I. Kurbatov. Legal psychology. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 2007.
2. Bondarenko T. A. Legal psychology for investigators. M., 2007.
3. Volkov V.N., Yanaev S.I. Legal psychology. M., 2005.
4. Vasiliev V.L. “Legal Psychology”: Textbook - St. Petersburg, 2006.
5. Enikeev M.I. Legal psychology. M., 2006.
6. Psychological techniques in the work of a lawyer. Stolyarenko O.M. M., 2006.
7. Shikhantsov G.G. Legal psychology. M., 2006.
Loading...