Difference between revisions of "Stokoe-Edwards2008"
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...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=19 | |Volume=19 | ||
|Number=1 | |Number=1 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=89–111 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445607085592 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/1461445607085592 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445607085592 | ||
| − | |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. |
| − | (SQs) (for example, | ||
| − | it is? | ||
| − | 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 | ||
| − | |||
| − | collaboratively produced by suspects. We then examine the design of | ||
| − | show how they play a central role in the articulation of | ||
| − | |||
| − | constitutive of | ||
| − | where SQs do not produce unambiguous answers about | ||
| − | intentionality, police officers move toward direct questioning about | ||
| − | intent, thus making explicit the project of | ||
| − | |||
| − | with subtle but crucial differences with regard to | ||
| − | and criminal intent. Suspects overwhelmingly align with police | ||
| − | formulations of | ||
| − | shape of | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:22, 20 November 2019
| 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 | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445607085592 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
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
