Objectives

When it comes to interviewing suspected terrorists, global evidence points to harsh interrogation procedures, despite the likelihood of false positives. How can the state maintain an effective counterterrorism policy while simultaneously protecting civil rights? Until now, the shroud of secrecy of “national security” practices has thwarted attempts by researchers to test apparatuses that engender fair interrogation procedures. The present study aims to test one approach: the use of a “procedural justice checklist” (PJ Checklist) in interviews of suspected terrorists by counterterrorism police officers in port settings.

Methods

Using a clustered randomized controlled field test in a European democracy, we measure the effect of implementing Procedural Justice (PJ) Checklists in counterterrorism police settings. With 65 teams of officers randomly-assigned into treatment and control conditions, we compare post-interrogation surveys of suspects (n = 1418) on perceptions of legitimacy; obligations to obey the law; willingness to cooperate with the police; effectiveness of counterterrorism measures; distributive justice; feelings of social resistance to the state; and PJ. A series of multi-level linear, logistic, and ordered logit regression models are used to estimate the treatment effect, with Hedges’ g and odds ratios used for effect sizes.

Results

When compared with control conditions, implementing a policy of PJ Checklist causes statistically significant and large enhancement in all measured dimensions, including the willingness of suspects to obey the law (g = 1.022 [0.905, 1.138]), to cooperate with the police (g = 1.118 [0.999, 1.238]), distributive justice (g = 0.993 [0.880, 1.106]), effectiveness (g = 1.077 [0.959, 1.195]), procedural justice (g = 1.044 [0.930, 1.158]), and feelings of resistance towards the state (g = − 0.370 [− 0.259, − 0.482]).

Conclusions

PJ checklists offer a simple, scalable means of improving how state agents interact with terrorism suspects. The police can use what is evidently a cost-effective tool to enhance legitimacy and cooperation with the police, even in a counterterrorism environment.

中文翻译：

---

一个简单的清单，这就是全部：关于改善警方对恐怖分子嫌疑人的待遇的集群随机对照现场试验

目标

在采访恐怖分子嫌疑人时，尽管存在误报的可能性，但全球证据表明审讯程序很严苛。国家如何在保护公民权利的同时保持有效的反恐政策？直到现在，“国家安全”实践的神秘面纱阻碍了研究人员测试能够产生公平审讯程序的设备的尝试。本研究旨在测试一种方法：在港口环境中反恐警察与恐怖分子嫌疑人面谈时使用“程序正义检查表”（PJ 检查表）。

方法

我们在欧洲民主国家使用集群随机受控现场测试，衡量在反恐警察环境中实施程序正义 (PJ) 清单的效果。将 65 支警官随机分配到治疗和控制条件，我们比较了对嫌疑人 ( n  = 1418)的审讯后调查对合法性的看法；遵守法律的义务；愿意与警方合作；反恐措施的有效性；分配正义；社会对国家的抵抗情绪；和 PJ。一系列多级线性、logistic 和有序 logit 回归模型用于估计治疗效果，对冲的g和优势比用于效果大小。

结果

与控制条件相比，实施 PJ Checklist 政策会导致所有测量维度的统计显着和大幅提高，包括嫌疑人遵守法律的意愿 ( g  = 1.022 [0.905, 1.138])、与警方合作的意愿( g  = 1.118 [0.999, 1.238])、分配正义 ( g  = 0.993 [0.880, 1.106])、有效性 ( g  = 1.077 [0.959, 1.195])、程序正义 ( g  = 1.044, [0.1.95]) 和感受对状态的阻力（g  = − 0.370 [− 0.259, − 0.482]）。

结论

PJ 清单提供了一种简单、可扩展的方法来改善国家特工与恐怖主义嫌疑人的互动方式。即使在反恐环境中，警方也可以使用明显具有成本效益的工具来提高与警方的合法性和合作。