Why Question Design in Legal Documents Matters
In criminal justice systems, written interrogation records are often treated as neutral and factual accounts. However, Saud’s research shows that these documents are not passive transcripts. The wording, structure, and sequencing of questions can influence how witnesses and suspects recall events and how their statements are ultimately framed in writing.
As courts increasingly rely on documentation rather than live narrative recall, the accuracy of written records becomes critical. Any linguistic framing embedded in questions may shape the final representation of events. This raises broader concerns about fairness, reliability, and procedural integrity in legal processes.
The study situates this issue within forensic linguistics and cognitive psycholinguistics, two fields that examine how language interacts with legal power and human memory.
How the Research Was Conducted
Jefriyanto Saud analyzed a subset of BAP documents by examining 117 question–answer pairs across five structural segments:
- Identity (ID)
- Event Orientation (EV)
- Chronology (KR)
- Evidence Confirmation (PB)
- Closing (PN)
The research applied a qualitative content analysis method, systematically coding each question based on its type—such as open-ended, closed, leading, suggestive, confrontational, or multi-part.
To evaluate risk, Saud developed the Distortion Risk Index (IRD), a semi-quantitative tool scoring nine potential mechanisms of distortion on a scale from 0 to 2. These mechanisms include:
- Presupposition (embedded assumptions in questions)
- Early labeling of items as “evidence”
- Anchoring to specific dates, numbers, or details
- Confirmation pressure
- Commitment locking during the closing phase
- The analysis focused on how linguistic structure interacts with cognitive load—how much mental processing a respondent must perform when answering.
Key Findings: Where Distortion Risk Is Highest
The study reveals distinct patterns across the five segments.
Overall, the segments with the highest distortion risk were:
- Closing (PN)
- Evidence Confirmation (PB)
- Chronology (KR)
Saud identifies four dominant risk patterns:
- Presenting third-party narratives before asking for confirmation
- Early classification of objects as formal evidence
- Anchoring memory to specific numbers or dates
- Strong final confirmation statements before signing
From a cognitive psychology perspective, such structures may influence how individuals reconstruct memory. Anchoring details introduced in a question can become integrated into recall, even if they were not originally volunteered.
Cognitive Load and Memory Constraints
Human working memory is limited. When questions contain multiple embedded tasks, respondents must simultaneously retrieve memories, verify details, organize narratives, and interpret institutional expectations.
Saud explains that heavy cognitive demands increase the risk of partial answers or alignment with the structure suggested by the interrogator. This does not necessarily imply intentional manipulation. Instead, it highlights systemic design features that may inadvertently shape testimony.
Importantly, the Distortion Risk Index does not measure whether statements are true or false. It assesses the linguistic and cognitive conditions under which information is produced.
Practical Implications for Legal Practice
The findings offer concrete recommendations for law enforcement agencies, legal educators, and policymakers:
- Prioritize open-ended questions during narrative reconstruction
- Apply a “one question–one cognitive task” principle
- Separate exploratory questioning from verification phases
- Avoid premature labeling of objects as evidence
- Provide explicit opportunities for correction before final confirmation
These steps align with evidence-based investigative interviewing models that emphasize information elicitation before confirmation.
For judicial systems, the research underscores the importance of understanding how documents are constructed. Judges and attorneys reviewing BAP documents may need to consider not only the answers but also how the questions shaped them.
Academic Insight from Universitas Negeri Gorontalo
Jefriyanto Saud of Universitas Negeri Gorontalo emphasizes that legal documentation is not purely mechanical. According to Saud, institutional language carries structural influence. By introducing the Distortion Risk Index, he provides a systematic way to evaluate that influence without accusing individual actors of misconduct.
Saud argues that improving question design enhances both fairness and evidentiary reliability. His work positions Universitas Negeri Gorontalo as a contributor to interdisciplinary research bridging law, linguistics, and cognitive science.
Author Profile
Jefriyanto Saud specializes in examining how institutional language shapes legal processes. His research focuses on the intersection of discourse structure, cognitive processing, and evidentiary reliability in formal documentation.
Source
This study provides a structured framework for evaluating how legal questioning practices may influence recorded testimony, offering practical guidance for improving procedural transparency and accuracy.
0 Komentar