Difference between revisions of "Antaki-etal2015"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Charles Antaki; Emma Richardson; Elizabeth Stokoe; Sara Willott; |Title=Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Number=3 | |Number=3 | ||
|Pages=328–350 | |Pages=328–350 | ||
| − | |Abstract=Reporting sexual assault to the authorities is fraught with | + | |URL=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josl.12124 |
| − | these are compounded when the complainant is hindered by an intellectual | + | |DOI=10.1111/josl.12124 |
| − | disability (ID). In a study of 19 U.K. police interviews with complainants | + | |Abstract=Reporting sexual assault to the authorities is fraught with difficulties, and these are compounded when the complainant is hindered by an intellectual disability (ID). In a study of 19 U.K. police interviews with complainants with ID alleging sexual assault and rape, we found that most interviewing officers on occasion pursued lines of questioning which not only probed inconsistencies (which is mandated by their guidelines), but implicitly questioned complainants’ conduct (which is not). We detail two main conversational practices which imply disbelief and disapproval of the complainants’ accounts and behaviour, and whose pragmatic entailments may pose problems for complainants with ID. Such practices probably emerge from interviewers’ foreshadowing of the challenges likely to be made in court by defence counsel. As a policy recommendation, we suggest providing early explanation for the motivation for such questioning, and avoiding certain question formats (especially how come you did X? and why didn't you do Y?). |
| − | with ID alleging sexual assault and rape, we found that most interviewing | ||
| − | |||
| − | inconsistencies (which is mandated by their guidelines), but implicitly | ||
| − | questioned complainants’ conduct (which is not). We detail two main | ||
| − | conversational practices which imply disbelief and disapproval of the | ||
| − | complainants’ accounts and behaviour, and whose pragmatic entailments | ||
| − | may pose problems for complainants with ID. Such practices probably | ||
| − | emerge from interviewers’ foreshadowing of the challenges likely to be | ||
| − | made in court by defence counsel. As a policy recommendation, we suggest | ||
| − | providing early explanation for the motivation for such questioning, and | ||
| − | avoiding certain question formats (especially how come you did X? and why | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:16, 16 December 2019
| Antaki-etal2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Antaki-etal2015 |
| Author(s) | Charles Antaki, Emma Richardson, Elizabeth Stokoe, Sara Willott |
| Title | Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Police, interviews, intellectual disability, sexual assault, questions |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Sociolinguistics |
| Volume | 19 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 328–350 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1111/josl.12124 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Reporting sexual assault to the authorities is fraught with difficulties, and these are compounded when the complainant is hindered by an intellectual disability (ID). In a study of 19 U.K. police interviews with complainants with ID alleging sexual assault and rape, we found that most interviewing officers on occasion pursued lines of questioning which not only probed inconsistencies (which is mandated by their guidelines), but implicitly questioned complainants’ conduct (which is not). We detail two main conversational practices which imply disbelief and disapproval of the complainants’ accounts and behaviour, and whose pragmatic entailments may pose problems for complainants with ID. Such practices probably emerge from interviewers’ foreshadowing of the challenges likely to be made in court by defence counsel. As a policy recommendation, we suggest providing early explanation for the motivation for such questioning, and avoiding certain question formats (especially how come you did X? and why didn't you do Y?).
Notes
