Structured Hypothesis Development in Criminal Investigation: A method aimed at providing a broad and objective starting point for a criminal investigation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2022
Structured Hypothesis Development in Criminal Investigation: A method aimed at providing a broad and objective starting point for a criminal investigation
The Structured Hypothesis Development in Criminal Investigation (SHDCI) method aims to assist detectives in developing an adequate set of hypotheses, which prepares the ground for a broad and objective investigation. The method aims to protect the innocent, while also enabling the detectives to discover the full scope of the incident under investigation. SHDCI builds on theory and principles from cognitive psychology, scientific methodology, logical reasoning, law and criminal investigation best practice. The method is developed in a Norwegian context, but builds on universally accepted legal principles, and SHDCI may therefore be relevant for implementation in other jurisdictions.
AskKFahsingIA (2018) Investigative decision making. In: GriffithsAAMilneR (eds) The Psychology of Criminal Investigation. London: Routledge, pp. 52–73.
2.
BjerknesOTFahsingIA (2018) Etterforskning: Prinsipper, metoder og praksis. [Criminal Investigation: Principles, Methods and Practices]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
3.
Council of Europe (1950) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html(accessed 27 April 2020).
4.
DeanG (2000) The experience of investigation for detectives. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
5.
DeanG (2005) The ‘cross+check’ system: integrating profiling approaches for police and security investigations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology20(2): 20–43.
6.
FahsingIA (2013) Tænkestile: Effektivitet, dyder og krydspress i efterforskninger [Thinking styles: effectiveness, virtues and cross-pressure in criminal investigations]. In: HaldCRønnKV (eds) Om at oppdage: Metodiske refleksjoner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis. Fredriksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 115–147.
7.
FahsingIA (2016) The Making of an Expert Detective. Thinking and Deciding in Criminal Investigations. PhD Thesis, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
8.
FahsingIAAskK (2015) The making of an expert detective: the role of experience in English and Norwegian police officers’ investigative decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law22(3): 203–223.
9.
GranhagPAAskK (2008) Psykologiska perspektiv på bevisvardering [Psychological perspectives on evidence evaluation]. In: GranhagPAChristiansonSA (eds) Handbok i rättspsykologi. Malmo: Liber AB, pp. 407–422.
10.
GriffithsAMilneR (eds) (2018) The Psychology of Criminal Investigation: From Theory to Practice. London: Routledge.
11.
HaldC (2013) Spor: at opdage tegn på kriminalitet [Traces: detecting signs of crime]. In: HaldCRønnKV (eds) Om at opdage. Metodiske refleksioner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis. Frederiksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 173–218.
InnesM (2007) Investigation order and major crime inquiries. In: NewburnTWilliamsonTWrightA (eds) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 255–276.
14.
JanisIL (1972) Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
15.
KeatleyDAClarkeDD (2020) Matrix forecasting and behaviour sequence analysis: part of the timeline toolkit for criminal investigation. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology10(2):1–8.
16.
KoenWJ (2016) Case study: Brandon Mayfield. In: KoenWJBowersCM (eds) Forensic Science Reform: Protecting the Innocent. Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 332–338.
17.
KolflaathE (2015) En metode for bevisbedømmelsen i straffesaker [A method for evidence evaluation in criminal proceedings]. In: AarliRHedlundMJebensSE (eds) Bevis i straffesaker. Oslo: Gyldendal, pp. 507–534.
18.
KolflaathE (2019) Hypoteser i etterforskningsplaner [Hypotheses in investigation plans]. In: OlsvikEHRisanP (eds) Etterforskning under lupen(PHS Forskning 2019: 3).Oslo: Politihøgskolen, pp. 61–99.
19.
LordCGLepperMRPrestonE (1984) Considering the opposite: a corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology47(6): 1231.
20.
MeissnerCAKassinSM (2002) ‘He’s guilty!’: investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior26(5): 469–480.
21.
NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
22.
OsbornAF (1963) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
23.
RachlewA (2009) Justisfeil ved politiets etterforskning: Noen eksempler og forskningsbaserte mottiltak [Errors of justice in criminal investigation: some examples and research based countermeasures]. PhD Thesis, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
24.
RassinE (2018) Reducing tunnel vision with a pen-and-paper tool for the weighting of criminal evidence. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling15(2): 227–233.
RønnKV (2013) Mistanke: Hypoteser og forklaringer i opdagelsesarbejdet [Suspicion: hypotheses and explanations in discovery work]. In: HaldCRønnKV (eds) Om at opdage. Metodiske refleksioner over politiets undersøgelsespraksis. Fredriksberg C: Samfundslitteratur, pp. 255–299.
27.
StelfoxP (2013) Criminal Investigation: An Introduction to Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
StubbinsIDStubbinsN (2009) On the horns of a narrative: judgment, heuristics, and biases in criminal investigation. In: RossmoKD (ed.) Criminal Investigative Failures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 123–164.
29.
SundeN (2019) Strukturert hypoteseutvikling i etterforskning [Structured hypothesis development in criminal investigation]. In: OlsvikEHRisanP (eds) Etterforskning under lupen (PHS Forskning 2019: 3). Oslo: Politihøgskolen, pp. 35–59.
30.
The Norwegian General Attorney (2018) Kvalitetskrav til straffesaksbehandlingen i politiet og ved statsadvokatembetene mv(Kvalitetsrundskrivet 3/2018) [Quality requirements for the police and public prosecutors during criminal proceedings].
31.
The Norwegian Police Directorate (2017) Retningslinjer for bruk av etterforskningsplan. Versjonnummer 1.0[Regulations for using investigation plans].
WheatleyG (1997) Reasoning with images in mathematical activity. In: EnglishL (ed.) Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 281–298.
