Difference between revisions of "DeAlmeida2024"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Fabio Ferraz de Almeida; |Title=Counter-Denunciations: How Suspects Blame Victims in Police Interviews for Low-Level Crimes |Tag(s)=EMCA...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Fabio Ferraz de Almeida; | |Author(s)=Fabio Ferraz de Almeida; | ||
|Title=Counter-Denunciations: How Suspects Blame Victims in Police Interviews for Low-Level Crimes | |Title=Counter-Denunciations: How Suspects Blame Victims in Police Interviews for Low-Level Crimes | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Police interviews; Criminal offences; Suspects; Counter-denunciation; Defensive strategies; Victim-blaming; Conversation analysis |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=DeAlmeida2024 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2024 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique | |Journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique | ||
| + | |Volume=37 | ||
| + | |Number=1 | ||
| + | |Pages=119–137 | ||
|URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-023-10060-9 | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11196-023-10060-9 | ||
|DOI=10.1007/s11196-023-10060-9 | |DOI=10.1007/s11196-023-10060-9 | ||
|Abstract=This article explores the ways in which suspects attempt to make putative victims/complainants at least partially responsible for the incidents for which they are investigated, transforming themselves into the victim and the other into the perpetrator. Drawing upon conversation analysis, I examine audio-recorded police interviews for low-level crimes in England and in which suspects have constructed what I refer as counter-denunciations. I argue that suspects accomplish these counter-denunciations through discursive practices that involve, for example (a) contrasting the complainant’s actions with their own innocent conduct; (b) historicizing the event being investigated; and (c) discrediting the complainant’s character—stigmatizing. These practices have in common the suspects’ reliance on the relational and contextual character of the categories ‘offender’ and ‘victim’. | |Abstract=This article explores the ways in which suspects attempt to make putative victims/complainants at least partially responsible for the incidents for which they are investigated, transforming themselves into the victim and the other into the perpetrator. Drawing upon conversation analysis, I examine audio-recorded police interviews for low-level crimes in England and in which suspects have constructed what I refer as counter-denunciations. I argue that suspects accomplish these counter-denunciations through discursive practices that involve, for example (a) contrasting the complainant’s actions with their own innocent conduct; (b) historicizing the event being investigated; and (c) discrediting the complainant’s character—stigmatizing. These practices have in common the suspects’ reliance on the relational and contextual character of the categories ‘offender’ and ‘victim’. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 3 February 2024
| DeAlmeida2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | DeAlmeida2024 |
| Author(s) | Fabio Ferraz de Almeida |
| Title | Counter-Denunciations: How Suspects Blame Victims in Police Interviews for Low-Level Crimes |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Police interviews, Criminal offences, Suspects, Counter-denunciation, Defensive strategies, Victim-blaming, Conversation analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique |
| Volume | 37 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 119–137 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11196-023-10060-9 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article explores the ways in which suspects attempt to make putative victims/complainants at least partially responsible for the incidents for which they are investigated, transforming themselves into the victim and the other into the perpetrator. Drawing upon conversation analysis, I examine audio-recorded police interviews for low-level crimes in England and in which suspects have constructed what I refer as counter-denunciations. I argue that suspects accomplish these counter-denunciations through discursive practices that involve, for example (a) contrasting the complainant’s actions with their own innocent conduct; (b) historicizing the event being investigated; and (c) discrediting the complainant’s character—stigmatizing. These practices have in common the suspects’ reliance on the relational and contextual character of the categories ‘offender’ and ‘victim’.
Notes
