Investigating the impact of facility and other specialist dogs on victims, witnesses and professionals in the criminal justice system: a paws-ible Intervention?

Facility dogs are a novel form of emotional support for victims and witnesses with very little empirical examination into their use. This thesis explores their potential impact on victims, witnesses, their support, and the professionals using them. An issue often raised is that facility dogs could bias juries, a concern that is explored in this thesis. A mixed methods systematic review was conducted to investigate the potential impact of dogs supporting victims and witnesses. Findings included that dogs help victims by creating a calm environment and providing companionship that helps victims to feel safe and experience positive emotions. In turn, victims’ coherency when providing evidence is strengthened, and their engagement with criminal justice processes improves.

To understand these findings better, a survey and interviews were conducted inviting opinions from professionals internationally. Results showed no correlation between the amount of time a person worked with facility dogs and perceptions regarding their impact. There was a correlation between perceived benefits for professionals and perceived benefits for victims. Findings also yielded that the US viewed facility dogs more positively compared to the rest of the world (namely, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, and the UK). Qualitative data detailed perceived benefits and issues around using facility dogs, including concerns of jury bias.

A randomised controlled study was conducted to investigate possible jury bias. Participants were allocated to one of four conditions to deliberate a fictional court case. Conditions varied by the visibility of the dog supporting the victim and instructions from the judge. Findings suggest that the influence of facility dogs on juries is negligible. This thesis creates and enhances knowledge of the impact facility dogs have in the criminal justice system, demonstrating benefits for victims’ wellbeing and engagement as well as for professionals’ emotional and occupational wellbeing, all while potentially causing no jury bias.