Stokoe2015b
| Stokoe2015b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Stokoe2015b |
| Author(s) | Elizabeth H. Stokoe, Derek Edwards, Helen Edwards |
| Title | “No comment” responses to questions in police investigative interviews |
| Editor(s) | Susan Ehrlich, Diana Eades, Janet Ainsworth |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Police, Question design, Response, Non-response |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | Oxford |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 289–318 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945351.003.0013 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This chapter investigates the way a particular right within the British legal system, that suspects “do not have to say anything,” is explained by police officers in investigative interviews, and how suspects enact this right using the formulaic response “No comment.” The chapter draws on data that were transcribed and analyzed using conversation analysis, focusing on instances in which suspects under-exercised their right not to answer questions using “No comment.” The chapter reveals that the formulaic design of “no comment” responses was treated by all participants as a legitimate and effective way of conducting a police interview, in a way that oriented to legal requirements, but some explanations of suspects’ rights not to say anything implied that exercising that right may be treated as evidence of guilt. The chapter ends with consideration of the ramifications of the right, its articulation, and enactment.
Notes
