Difference between revisions of "Komter2002"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Martha L. Komter; |Title=The suspect's own words: The treatment of written statements in Dutch courtrooms |Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom Inter...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Martha L. Komter; | + | |Author(s)=Martha L. Komter; |
| − | |Title=The suspect's own words: | + | |Title=The suspect's own words: the treatment of written statements in Dutch courtrooms |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom Interaction; Written Statements | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom Interaction; Written Statements | ||
|Key=Komter2002 | |Key=Komter2002 | ||
|Year=2002 | |Year=2002 | ||
| − | |Journal=Forensic | + | |Journal=Forensic Linguistics |
|Volume=9 | |Volume=9 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages=168 | + | |Pages=168–192 |
| + | |URL=https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/IJSLL/article/view/579 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1558/sll.2002.9.2.168 | ||
| + | |Abstract=In Dutch trials, suspects are confronted with written statements they made to the police and the investigating judge, earlier in the criminal law process, as recorded in the case files. These statements are supposed to be written down as far as possible in the suspect’s own words, but they are in fact the police officer’s written versions of what was said in the interrogating room. They are simultaneously reports of previous talks held in the police interrogating room and part of the interaction in the courtroom, both of which are conducted for a different purpose. Thus, suspects are held accountable for what they supposedly told the police, and if they argue with this, judges can rebut their protests by pointing out that they themselves have told this to the police. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:06, 30 October 2019
| Komter2002 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Komter2002 |
| Author(s) | Martha L. Komter |
| Title | The suspect's own words: the treatment of written statements in Dutch courtrooms |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Courtroom Interaction, Written Statements |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2002 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Forensic Linguistics |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 168–192 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1558/sll.2002.9.2.168 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In Dutch trials, suspects are confronted with written statements they made to the police and the investigating judge, earlier in the criminal law process, as recorded in the case files. These statements are supposed to be written down as far as possible in the suspect’s own words, but they are in fact the police officer’s written versions of what was said in the interrogating room. They are simultaneously reports of previous talks held in the police interrogating room and part of the interaction in the courtroom, both of which are conducted for a different purpose. Thus, suspects are held accountable for what they supposedly told the police, and if they argue with this, judges can rebut their protests by pointing out that they themselves have told this to the police.
Notes
