Difference between revisions of "DeAlmeida2024"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(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...")
 
m (AndreiKorbut moved page DeAlmeida2023 to DeAlmeida2024 without leaving a redirect)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
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; In press; Police interviews; Criminal offences; Suspects; Counter-denunciation; Defensive strategies; Victim-blaming; Conversation analysis
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Police interviews; Criminal offences; Suspects; Counter-denunciation; Defensive strategies; Victim-blaming; Conversation analysis
|Key=DeAlmeida2023
+
|Key=DeAlmeida2024
|Year=2023
+
|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’.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 11:04, 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

Download BibTex

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