Police and Witnesses of Serious Violent Crime in the United Arab Emirates - Research Proposal Example

Please just send a message if you need anything. Thanks! Police and Witnesses of Serious Violent Crime in the United Arab Emirates Contents Contents 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Background of the Study Encouraging witnesses to provide evidence seem a major problem for the police and prosecution as lack of evidence often result to acquittal of those who are actually guilty in the eyes of the law. Fear, intimidation, appalling police practices, and distrust in the legal system are considered primary reasons for not cooperating with the police. They discourage or deter a significant number of witnesses from telling what they know about the crime and prevent justice from being served. Literature shows that UK and other countries made some initiatives regarding this problem but there is no clear evidence in literature to suggest that UAE is doing something to improve witness experience to encourage voluntary evidence submission and testimony in court. There is therefore a need to investigate existing processes particularly those that are dealing with witnesses of crime and identify measures that can improve witness motivation in submitting evidence to the police and willingness to testify in court. 1.2 Problem Statement People who witness a crime but unwilling to provide evidence to the police is a major problem confronting the justice system as this could lead to significant number of unresolved crimes and increasing crime rate. 1.3 Research Questions a. What are the existing processes for the police in dealing with witnesses of crime? b. What are the reasons for witnesses being willing or not wanting to provide evidence to police and testify in prosecutions? c. How can we improve the experience of witnesses to encourage the provision of evidence to the police and testimony for prosecutions (comparing and contrasting UAE and UK literature and experience as appropriate). 1.4 Objectives The objectives of this research include being able to gather adequate about existing police practices in dealing with witnesses, the reasons behind some witnesses reluctance to provide evidence, and identify best practices that can improve witness experience and motivation in UAE. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Existing processes in dealing with witnesses of crime in UAE and UK Ensuring a fair justice system involves protecting both victims and witnesses particularly those that are vulnerable and intimidated, witnesses with learning difficulties and mental issues. In the UK for instance, The Crown Prosecution Service have been working very hard to support witnesses who will likely go through a traumatic and intimidating experience while presenting their testimony (Ministry of Justice, 2011, p.1). The Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures suggest that witnesses are being prepared for interview and the possibility of court appearance (ibid, p. 65). However, it seems that the UK Crown Prosecution is only tackling the protection of “willing witnesses” rather than disinterested and reluctant witnesses. The latter are actually the problem as they are difficult to persuade and cannot be influenced by mere promises or improved court procedures. There is not much articles suggesting the actual processes in dealing with witnesses of crime but examination of existing criminal measures and procedures suggest that potential witnesses are obliged to cooperate (see detailed discussion in last part of section 2.2) (UAE Ministry of Justice, 2012, Penalties and Criminal Measures). However, this does not necessarily mean that UAE lack the initiatives found in the United Kingdom. For instance, Abu Dhabi’s Federal Law No. (35) of 1992 dealing with criminal procedural law contains some provisions about how police will handle witnesses. For instance, the law generally seeks to protect personal freedom along with public interest and for this reason, the court can summon potential witnesses with a warrant of arrest. Moreover, failure to appear in court will result to a fine not exceeding 1,000 AED (Abu Dhabi Governments, 2012, Procedures for Criminal Cases). Apparently, the Abu Dhabi criminal justice system is expecting potential witness to voluntarily provide evidence or testimony but since there is provisions for warrant of arrest and a fine for not appearing in court, potential witness are obligated regardless of circumstances – intimidation, threat, traumatic experience, and so on. The problem with this part of UAE in terms of witness experience is the fact that witness situation or circumstances are never considered and unlike the UK government, witness protection against traumatic and intimidating experience or motivating disinterested or unwilling witnesses is never an issue. Moreover, witnesses in UAE seem to have no recourse but to cooperate because the criminal law says so. 2.2 Reasons for not wanting or being willing to provide evidence and testify in court Various literature suggest that witnesses of crime can be classified into seven categories that include those that are interested, disinterested, nervous, unwilling, lying, hostile, and young witnesses (Vadackumchery 2003, p.288). Unlike ”interested” witnesses who are either in the administration of criminal justice or acquittal of the accused, “disinterested” and “unwilling” witnesses think they will not gain or lose anything from their involvement. However, the level of their avoidance is different, as disinterested witnesses may get involved with little influence while unwilling witnesses may be reluctant to advance anything as evidence (ibid, p.288) due to a variety of reasons such as fear of intimidation, strong community ties, and deep-seated distrust on the criminal justice system (Finn & Healy, 1996, p.4). Fear of intimidation occurs when a witness feel threatened by the accused particularly in cases involving domestic violence or organized crime. For instance, some witnesses are reluctant to testify because of strong community ties and basic distrust of the police particularly when the accused is a neighbour, members of the same church or organization, child of a friend, and so on (Thompson & Ruback, 2001, p.166). A witness is considered the most important person in a criminal trial but many people avoid becoming a witness in criminal cases mainly because they are not getting the treatment they deserve (Vadckumchery 1997, p.35). For instance, study conducted by Vadckumchery (1997) shows that in 21.65% of cases, witnesses were untrue and gave their testimony because they were motivated, instigated, and coerced by the police or by the accused. Similarly, some 6.53% of witnesses complained that the police threaten them and interviewed using unauthorized methods or tactics. In contrast, some witnesses complained that the police never interview them and only become aware of their statements when they are summoned to the court. Consequently, 9.27% of cases filed in court were acquitted because judges found defects in the testimony of witnesses and several grounds for acquittal that include key witnesses turn hostile, contradicting statements, unbelievable version of witnesses, oral evidence of witnesses contradicts documentary evidence, and others (p.39). According to Spencer & Stern (2001), witnesses are reluctant to give statement and evidence in court not only because they fear of intimidation but also distrust the police and the way they usually handle the case. Witnesses are afraid about the way they will be treated in court and in doubt of the criminal justice agencies that they think will cause them considerable inconvenience with little appreciation in return (p.12). Witnesses’ reluctance to cooperate with the police is caused by a number of reasons including prior experience and culturally influenced views regarding the police. They simply do not want to be involved or give information to the police because of the eventuality that it will result to injury to them or to their family members (Henk et al, 2012, p.171). Reluctance to aid police investigation is also caused by some police practices such as “not listening attitude” that makes witnesses become repulsive and reluctant to divulge highly sensitive information. Calling witnesses to the police station to record their statements but not attended properly can give the impression that the police are not actually interested to listen to their side of the story. Moreover, they are commonly not paid any travel expenses and interviewed in degrading and intimidating manner (Vadackumchery, 1999, p.54). Another reason for not providing information to the police is the reality that willingness to testify is stronger immediately after the crime as witness that given time to reflect will likely think of the inconvenience and financial cost of cooperating and testifying in court. Given enough time to reflect, witnesses will also likely to think of the consequences of being witness particularly when the criminal has the ability to retaliate. Moreover, not everyone with information can provide it easily particularly those that are emotionally distress, culturally marginalized, and speaks a foreign language (Hess et al, 2009, p.181). In the UK, reluctance of witnesses to come forward and give their testimony is a consistent problem and according to Munday (2007), even if they come forward, they usually end up resiling or contradicting their own statements, modify their testimony, refuse to testify or forget everything they witness during cross-examination in court (p.160). The common reason for this behaviour is the realization of the treatment they will receive from the police or court. For instance, rape victims are often reluctant to submit to embarrassing cross-examination particularly those that are about their sexual relationship with other partners. However, the most problematic is the extent of intimidation as shown by the 1998 British Crime Survey where 8% of all incidents led to witness intimidation particularly when the victim knew the offender. This is the reason why the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 include provisions regarding witness intimidation in order to counter witness resistance. For instance, to protect witness from the ordeal of testifying, screens may be erected in the courtroom shielding him or her from the view of the accused (ibid, p.161). In contrast, under the Penalties and Criminal Measures of the UAE Criminal Procedural law, Article 93 suggest that whoever summoned to appear as witness before the public prosecution can only abstain with acceptable excuse as they can be arrested and appear in court forcibly. Moreover, in Article 94, a witness is excuse when he is sick or has a valid excuse for not appearing. Note that there is no provision for disinterested or unwilling witnesses and therefore obligated to provide their testimony and appear in court regardless of fear of intimidation, community persecution, distrust in the criminal system and the police, and retaliation from the accused (UAE Ministry of Justice, 2012, Penalties and Criminal Measures). 2.3 Improving the experience of witnesses and encouraging provision of evidence to the police and testimony for prosecutions in both UAE and UK One of the most remarkable initiatives in the United Kingdom focusing on improving the experience of witnesses and encouraging provision of evidence is the Witness Service. The service provides advice, information, and support to help witnesses through the stress of court appearance. Consequently, the service is improving witness attendance rates and increasing successful prosecutions (Maguire et al, 2007, p.475). In pre-trial and initial police investigation, the Coercive Measures Act 1987 protects those that may be affected by intimidation during the early period of investigation where the witness’s evidence is being secured (Hadley, 2006, p.33). Another is “bail conditions”, a strategy developed over the years to protect witnesses from intimidation by restricting the movement of the accused and bail conditions preventing the accused from making any contract with the potential witness (ibid, p.34). In terms of witness reluctance and motivation to provide evidence, the UK concern is evident in the 2003 nationwide strategy “No Witness – No Justice” aiming to put victims and witnesses in the centre of the UK criminal justice system. In recent years, the UK government developed several witness protection policies, programs, and agencies. These include the Crown Prosecution Service mentioned earlier, training video and guidelines for the police force, best practices guidelines for local authorities when commissioning professional witness, the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, community-based witness support schemes, and ACPO where police forces are being monitored when dealing with witnesses (Hadley, 2006, p.47). In contrast, due to the difference in the legal system, UAE seems a little behind in terms of improving witnesses experience and motivation. However, this does not necessarily mean that the UK situation is better than the UAE as witnesses in this region may not be suffering similar intimidation. Moreover, although there seems no relevant literature to prove the existence of witness support or protection programs in the region, the fact that there are laws maintaining the balance between personal freedom and protection of public interest, it can be safely assume that UAE authorities protect their witnesses in a manner consistent with their laws and situation. For instance, Article (44) of the Federal Law No. 35 of 1992 in Abu Dhabi provide judicial officers the right to prevent anyone present in the crime scene to leave until the investigation is completed. They can also immediately call anyone who can be a potential witness (Abu Dhabi Governments, 2012, Procedures for Criminal Cases). These provisions by analysis is an effective approach in terms of evidence gathering as willingness to testify is stronger immediately after the crime (Hess et al, 2009, p.181). Although this approach does not distinguish the right of those who are reluctant to provide evidence, it is unlikely that witness intimidations occurring in the UK will happen in UAE where a different legal system and police practices exists. 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Research Design Choice of research design is mainly dependent on the nature of the problem at hand (Gobo et al, 2004, p.313). For instance, the design may be focus on how people think about a particular social phenomenon such as the unwillingness of some people to stand as a witness in a crime. Generally, a research design includes details of the problem, the objectives, research questions, the population, sampling plan, data collection techniques and method of analysis (Lal Das, 2008, p.42). Since the purpose of this study is to find out how can we improve the experience of witnesses in order to encourage participation and presentation of evidence to the police and testimony to the court, it can be an exploratory research involving existing police practices and reasons why some people are willing or unwilling to provide evidence. According McNabb (2010), there are two reasons why researchers chose the exploratory approach. First, it enables preparatory examination of the issue which in this case is existing police practices in dealing with witnesses and reasons why some people refuse to cooperate. Second, it enables information gathering for immediate application to an administrative problem, which in this case is data collection and analysis of ways and means to improve the experience of witnesses and encourage submission of evidence. In other words, exploratory research is an in-depth look into all the factors involved in this social and political phenomenon (p.96). This is the reason why this study initially conducted a literature review of existing processes, specific reasons for not providing evidence, and compare and contrast UAE and UK experience and initiatives regarding the issue. An effective exploratory research requires precise formulation of problems that can be achieved through interviews, focus groups, observations, and others (Mooi & Sarstedt, 2011, p.14). More importantly, it must be flexible to cover all aspects of the problem as knowledge of different variables enables the researcher to change his course of action and improve ideas and hypothesis (Wood & Ross-Kerr, 2010, p.121). The proposed research design (see population, sampling technique, data collection and analysis, and timescale below) will be able to confirm, deny, and/or modify existing literature in a number of ways. For instance, although there are established criminal procedures, there seems not much study about how witnesses are actually being treated in the United Arab Emirates. The eligibility criteria set for the study population will ensure that the right participants are interviewed and produce realistic information about existing police practices particularly when dealing with witnesses. Similarly, the sampling technique will make sure that participants and resources are readily available and the study of population is representative of the larger population. The data collection and analysis method on the other hand enable this study to get as much relevant information from participants and ensure accuracy of the result. The combination of the above will likely produce result that can confirm, deny, and/or modify existing literature. For instance, if the results of the study concerning the reasons why a number of people who witness a crime are reluctant to provide evidence suggest that intimidations are coming from the police rather than the accused, then improvements suggested by literature will be modified to include elimination appalling police practices. Similarly, if the result of this study suggests that the police are handling witnesses well and these witnesses are actually afraid of facing the accused in court then some sort of protection must be provided by the legal system whenever such traumatic and degrading moments occur. As shown in the literature review, existing measures in the UK to protect and encourage witnesses to testify in court does not include those who fundamentally distrust the legal system, the police, and other enforcement agencies. In UAE, the criminal measures and procedures does not provide a clear description on how police and the court will deal with unwilling witnesses who by UAE law is obligated to provide evidence regardless of circumstances. 3.2 Study Population Describing the study population is an integral part of research and according to Friedman et al, (2010), it should state the eligibility criteria and potential benefits of selecting this type of population as stated below (p.58). For this study, participants must be: A resident of UAE Of legal age and can be a witness in a crime Good health and in low risk of developing conditions associated with stress such as heart attack and other disorders. Likely to adhere to the study’s protocol and fully cooperate with the researcher People with prior experience as a witness or members of the police force 3.3 Sampling Technique Similar to research design selection, the decision about which sample technique to be use depends on the extent of the goals of the research. In this case, Krysik & Finn (2010) suggest that an exploratory research should use non-probability sampling particularly when the goal of the research is more associated with discovery than generalization of facts. Similarly, it should be qualitative as its purpose is to understand and apply rather than quantify and generalize (p.168). Aside from the above recommendations, some to the reason why this study selected non-probability over probability sampling is the fact that samples in non-probability approach are easier to collect, more accessible, and less expensive compared to probability samples that tend to require creation of expensive sample frame (Hyman & Sierra, 2010, p.222). Similarly, using a non-probability approach will enable this study to use different types of non-probability-based sampling such as “convenience sampling” or “available-subjects sampling” that take advantage of readily accessible samples. For instance, researchers in psychology and sociology researchers in universities often use readily available students as participants in their studies which is essence is much cheaper and flexible. Moreover, convenience sampling can also use the Internet (being use by millions of people around the world) as a medium to gather more samples (Adler & Clark, 2010, p.126). The next move is determine the sample size and since this study will be using non-probability samples, sample size is dependent on the available budget, rules of thumb, and number of sub-groups to be analyzed in determining the sample size (McDaniel & Gates, 1998, p.310). Sample size can be based on either precision or power analysis by controlling the confidence level or the power (Nielsen, 2010, p.76). However, for the purpose of this study, precision analysis will be use and based on the confidence interval approach and normal population. Using an online sample calculator of the Creative Research Systems, the sample size for this study will be determined by entering a confidence level of 95%. This means the study will be 95% certain that the true percentage of the population is represented within the confidence interval (margin of error) which is 50% - the worst-case percentage in determining the general level of accuracy. The formula for sample size determination is shown below. Figure 1- Sample Size Formula (Creative Systems, 2012) Using this online calculator, a population of 200 people with 95% confidence level and confidence interval or margin of error of 5% yields a sample size of 132. Note that lower margin of error requires a larger sample size therefore if we increase this by 50% then the sample size for this study will be 4. 3.4 Data Collection Since this is exploratory research using non-probability and convenient sampling, qualitative data collection will be the main data gathering technique. These include observation and in-depth interview (Ulin et al, 2012, p.15). Combining interview with observation can provide this study with more holistic and improved understanding of police practices and witness behaviour. For instance, interview can help this study determine the reasons why a certain individual is a reluctant witness while observation can confirm this behaviour in action (Streubert & Carpenter, 2011, p.88). The first step that will be taken collecting data is to secure participants informed consent (see requirements in ethics form) and other ethical requirements associated with in-depth interview and observation. According to Merriam (2009), interviewing and observation in qualitative data collection have their own ethical problems such as invasion of participant’s privacy, embarrassing questions, and respondents telling things they never want to reveal. These may result in long-term effects such as anger and frustration, painful and debilitating memories, and others. However, these may also result to positive conditions particularly when the participants feel that his or her revelation will be use to improve their lives (p.231). For instance, it may be reassuring for some respondents to know that their opinion counts and it will be use to improve police practices or enhance witness experience which they see as barriers in the fair implementation of criminal justice. The second step is scheduling each respondent for the in-depth interview. This will be done by email asking their most convenient time, preferred place, and method of interview (with or without recording). The third step is the actual interview and observation where each respondent will answer strategically designed questions and respond to other clarificatory questions. The third and final step is arranging and preparing data collected for coding and analysis. Note that data collection and data analysis will be conducted simultaneously as required and following best practices in qualitative research. 3.5 Data Analysis Since the data collection method is qualitative, this study feels that a qualitative analysis is more appropriate. Open coding in qualitative research is the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data (Boeije, 2009, p.96) and in this study, data collected from qualitative data collection will be divided into fragments. These fragments will be compared against each other, grouped into categories, and labelled with a code. The table below is an example of open coding of an interview with a potential witness in a crime. Code Interview Transcript Intimidated by police Q. What is the main reason why you are reluctant to cooperate as a witness? A. I feel intimidated whenever police ask arrogant and threatening questions. Inherent distrust in Legal System Q. I think UAE police are very professional and respecting the rights of witnesses. Why you are still reluctant? A. They never appear that way to me. I do not trust the system actually. Importance of motivation and assurance Q. Do you like law enforcement officers approach you and explain matters concerning the importance of your testimony in reducing crime rate in UAE? A. Yes I would really appreciate that. Figure 2- Sample of Open Coding for Qualitative Data Analysis 3.6 Time Scale ID Description Days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 Submission of Proposal 2 Survey Preparation 3 Data Collection 4 Data Analysis 5 Dissertation Writing 6 Draft Submission 7 Finalization 8 Final Submission 9 Approval 4. Limitations and Ethical Challenges A research is often subject to limitations because of the inherent weaknesses of the chosen research model. For instance, qualitative data collection method such as interviews and observation are subject to bias and misinterpretations thus care should be taken. Moreover, the goal of this study requires non-probability sampling of a larger population, which in practices may cheaper but exhaustive. More importantly, qualitative data collection is more vulnerable to ethical problems as interviews often involves protecting the privacy of respondents, their anonymity, and avoiding embarrassing questions that can severely affect respondents behaviour. 5. References Abu Dhabi Government (2012), Procedures for Criminal Case, available online at http://www.abudhabi.ae/egovPoolPortal_WAR/appmanager/ADeGP/Citizen?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P5800195121229243953993&did=302552&lang=en Adler E. & Clark R, (2010), An Invitation to Social Research: How Its Done, Cengage Learning, US Boeije H, (2009), Analysis in Qualitative Research, SAGE, UK Creative Research Systems, (2012), Sample Size Calculator, available online at http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Finn P. & Healy K, (1996), Preventing Gang & Drug Related Witness Intimidation, DIANE Publishing, US Friedman L, Furberg C, & DeMets D, (2010), Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, Springer, Germany Gobo G, Seale C, Silverman D, & Gubrium J, (2004), Qualitative Research Practice, SAGE, UK Hadley J, (2006), Witness Intimidation and Protection Practices, Espoo, pp. 1 -74 Henk B, Becker R, & Dutelle A, (2012), Criminal Investigation, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, UK Hess K, Orthmann C, & Bennett W, (2009), Criminal Investigation, Cengage Learning, US Hymann M. & Sierra J, (2010), Marketing Research Kit, John Wiley & Sons, US Krysik J. & Finn J, (2010), Research for Effective Social Work Practice, Taylor & Francis, UK Lal Das D, (2008), Doing Social Research: A Source Book for Preparing Dissertation, Gyan Publishing House, US McDaniel C. & Gates R, (1998), Marketing Research Essentials, Taylor & Francis, UK McNabb D, (2010), Research Methods for Political Science: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, M.E. Sharpe, US Maguire M, Morgan R, & Reiner R, (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press, UK Merriam S, (2009), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, John Wiley & Sons, US Ministry of Justice, (2011), Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, Welsh Assembly, UK Mooi E. & Sarstedt M, (2011), A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics, Springer, Germany Munday R, (2007), Evidence, Oxford University Press, UK Nielsen S, (2010), Food Analysis: Fourth Edition, Springer, Germany Spencer S. & Stern M, (2001), Reluctant Witness, Institute for Public Policy Research, UK Streubert H, Carpenter D, (2011), Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, UK Thompson M. & Ruback B, (2001), Social and Psychological Consequences of Violent Victimization, SAGE, UK UAE Ministry of Justice, (2012), Penalties and Criminal Measures, available online at http://www.elaws.gov.ae/EnLegislations.aspx Ulin P, Robinson E, & Tolley E, (2012), Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research, John Wiley & Sons, US Vadackumchery J, (1997), The Police, The Court and Injustice, APH Publishing, US Vadackumchey J, (1999), Professional Police-Witness Interviewing, APH Publishing, US Vadackumchery J, (2003), Crime Law and Police Science, Concept Publishing Company, US Wood M. & Ross-Kerr J, (2010), Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research, Jones & Bartlett , UK Read More