Stokoe-Edwards2008

From emcawiki
Revision as of 04:31, 29 April 2019 by PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Elizabeth Stokoe; Derek Edwards; |Title=“Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?” Silly questions and their answer...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Stokoe-Edwards2008
BibType ARTICLE
Key Stokoe-Edwards2008
Author(s) Elizabeth Stokoe, Derek Edwards
Title “Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door?” Silly questions and their answers in police—suspect interrogations
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, categories of crime, intentionality, neighbourhood crime, police interrogations, silly questions, state of mind
Publisher
Year 2008
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 19
Number 1
Pages 89-111
URL
DOI 10.1177/1461445607085592
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

ABSTRACT We examine the asking and answering of ‘silly questions’ (SQs) (for example, ‘might sound a bit silly, but do you know whose window it is?’) in British police interviews with suspects, the courses of action SQs initiate, and the institutional contingencies they are designed to manage. We show how SQs are asked at an important juncture toward the ends of interviews, following police officers’ formulations of suspects’ testimony (e.g. ‘so you’ve admitted throwing eggs’). These formulations are confirmed or even collaboratively produced by suspects. We then examine the design of SQs and show how they play a central role in the articulation of suspects’ reported ‘state of mind’, and particularly attributing to them criminal intentions constitutive of the offence with which they may be charged. In cases where SQs do not produce unambiguous answers about ‘state of mind’ or intentionality, police officers move toward direct questioning about suspects’ intent, thus making explicit the project of SQs in such interviews. Following SQ–Answer sequences, police officers reformulate suspects’ testimony, with subtle but crucial differences with regard to suspects’ knowledge state and criminal intent. Suspects overwhelmingly align with police officers’ formulations of their testimony, and such agreements have the interactional shape of affiliation. Yet SQs may work in ways that are institutionally adversarial with regard to criminal charges, relevant evidence and self-incriminating testimony.

Notes