法律在行动的结构:在英国警方采访中“构思”嫌疑人的陈述

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Fabio Ferraz de Almeida, P. Drew
{"title":"法律在行动的结构:在英国警方采访中“构思”嫌疑人的陈述","authors":"Fabio Ferraz de Almeida, P. Drew","doi":"10.1558/ijsll.38527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article reports findings from a study of police interviews of people suspected of having committed relatively minor criminal offences, in a police station in England. The data comprise audio-recorded investigative interviews which were analysed using conversation analysis. It is focused on a communicative practice employed by police officers while questioning suspects. This practice is to ‘formulate’ what the suspect has just said; formulations are a means of summarising the suspect’s evidence in a particular phase of questioning, in such a way as to represent the suspect’s own words. Formulations, as a practice in talk-in-interaction, enable police officers to a) summarise the upshot of what a suspect has said during a period or phase of questioning, b) attribute this summary directly to a suspect’s ‘own words’, c) construct a suspect’s account (confirmation) as legally relevant, and which can d) elicit from the suspect a form of admission. Formulations are employed as a mechanism to rework prior descriptions and utterances by transforming and elaborating them and consolidating their legal relevance. Through this practice, police officers manage to attribute legal labels to what suspects have said during the interview, to their evidence (e.g. as denying, admitting, telling, etc.) as well as to the character of the incidents or events in question (e.g. assault, breach of harassment warning, criminal damage, arson). Formulating, therefore, is an interactional practice through which key legal work is accomplished in police interviews with suspects in England. It is a device that constitutes the fabric of law-in-action.","PeriodicalId":43843,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","volume":"114 1-2","pages":"35-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The fabric of law-in-action: ‘formulating’ the suspect’s account during police interviews in England\",\"authors\":\"Fabio Ferraz de Almeida, P. Drew\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/ijsll.38527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article reports findings from a study of police interviews of people suspected of having committed relatively minor criminal offences, in a police station in England. The data comprise audio-recorded investigative interviews which were analysed using conversation analysis. It is focused on a communicative practice employed by police officers while questioning suspects. This practice is to ‘formulate’ what the suspect has just said; formulations are a means of summarising the suspect’s evidence in a particular phase of questioning, in such a way as to represent the suspect’s own words. Formulations, as a practice in talk-in-interaction, enable police officers to a) summarise the upshot of what a suspect has said during a period or phase of questioning, b) attribute this summary directly to a suspect’s ‘own words’, c) construct a suspect’s account (confirmation) as legally relevant, and which can d) elicit from the suspect a form of admission. Formulations are employed as a mechanism to rework prior descriptions and utterances by transforming and elaborating them and consolidating their legal relevance. Through this practice, police officers manage to attribute legal labels to what suspects have said during the interview, to their evidence (e.g. as denying, admitting, telling, etc.) as well as to the character of the incidents or events in question (e.g. assault, breach of harassment warning, criminal damage, arson). Formulating, therefore, is an interactional practice through which key legal work is accomplished in police interviews with suspects in England. It is a device that constitutes the fabric of law-in-action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law\",\"volume\":\"114 1-2\",\"pages\":\"35-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38527\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38527","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文报告了一项研究的结果,该研究是在英国的一个警察局对涉嫌犯有相对轻微的刑事罪行的人进行的采访。数据包括录音的调查访谈,并使用谈话分析进行分析。它侧重于警察在询问嫌疑人时所采用的交际实践。这种做法是“构思”嫌疑人刚刚说过的话;套话是在讯问的某一特定阶段总结嫌疑人的证据的一种手段,以这种方式代表嫌疑人自己的话。套话作为互动谈话中的一种做法,使警察能够a)总结嫌疑人在讯问期间或阶段所说的话的结果,b)将这种总结直接归因于嫌疑人的“自己的话”,c)构建嫌疑人的陈述(确认)具有法律相关性,并且可以d)从嫌疑人那里引出某种形式的承认。提词作为一种机制,通过对先前的描述和话语进行改造和细化,巩固它们的法律相关性,从而对它们进行再加工。通过这种做法,警察设法为嫌疑人在面谈期间所说的话、他们的证据(例如否认、承认、陈述等)以及所涉事件或事件的性质(例如袭击、违反骚扰警告、刑事破坏、纵火)贴上法律标签。因此,在英国,制定是一种互动的实践,通过这种实践,警察讯问嫌疑人的关键法律工作得以完成。它是构成现行法律结构的一种手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The fabric of law-in-action: ‘formulating’ the suspect’s account during police interviews in England
This article reports findings from a study of police interviews of people suspected of having committed relatively minor criminal offences, in a police station in England. The data comprise audio-recorded investigative interviews which were analysed using conversation analysis. It is focused on a communicative practice employed by police officers while questioning suspects. This practice is to ‘formulate’ what the suspect has just said; formulations are a means of summarising the suspect’s evidence in a particular phase of questioning, in such a way as to represent the suspect’s own words. Formulations, as a practice in talk-in-interaction, enable police officers to a) summarise the upshot of what a suspect has said during a period or phase of questioning, b) attribute this summary directly to a suspect’s ‘own words’, c) construct a suspect’s account (confirmation) as legally relevant, and which can d) elicit from the suspect a form of admission. Formulations are employed as a mechanism to rework prior descriptions and utterances by transforming and elaborating them and consolidating their legal relevance. Through this practice, police officers manage to attribute legal labels to what suspects have said during the interview, to their evidence (e.g. as denying, admitting, telling, etc.) as well as to the character of the incidents or events in question (e.g. assault, breach of harassment warning, criminal damage, arson). Formulating, therefore, is an interactional practice through which key legal work is accomplished in police interviews with suspects in England. It is a device that constitutes the fabric of law-in-action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles on any aspect of forensic language, speech and audio analysis. Founded in 1994 as Forensic Linguistics, the journal changed to its present title in 2003 to reflect a broadening of academic coverage and readership. Subscription to the journal is included in membership of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信