Benneworth-Gray2014

From emcawiki
Revision as of 07:00, 24 February 2015 by ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kelly Benneworth-Gray |Title=‘Are you going to tell me the truth today?’: Invoking obligations of honesty in police-suspect intervie...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Benneworth-Gray2014
BibType ARTICLE
Key Benneworth-Gray2014
Author(s) Kelly Benneworth-Gray
Title ‘Are you going to tell me the truth today?’: Invoking obligations of honesty in police-suspect interviews
Editor(s)
Tag(s) Police, Decision, Truth Claims, Interviews
Publisher
Year 2014
Language
City
Month
Journal International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Volume 21
Number 2
Pages
URL Link
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

Current police interviewing guidelines describe the investigative interview as a ‘search for truth’ (National Crime Faculty 2004). A wealth of social science literature treats ‘truth’ in the criminal justice system, like ‘honesty’, ‘lies’ and ‘deception’, as a product of individual intent and decision-making – an absolute which can be systematically observed and measured. Discourse analytic and conversation analytic methods were used to examine how police interviewers talked about ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ in three interviews with adult males suspected of sexual offences against children. What do references to ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ look like? Where are they positioned? How are they managed sequentially? The analysis revealed that ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ are locally invoked interactional resources, produced, recognised and contested in two very different sequential environments. Firstly, the interviewers set up a contractual obligation to ‘tell the truth’ at the outset of the interviews. These obligations comprise an expectation of truth, a direct request for truth and a reciprocal offer of truth. This contractual obligation is then revisited later in the interview as a resource to mark disjuncture between the testimonies of the suspect and the alleged victim and construct the suspect’s testimony as implausible. This article outlines some of the implications of these observations for the development of interviewing practice.

Notes