Exploring identities in police interrogations
-
Jixian Pang
Abstract
Throughout a police interrogation, the identities of police interrogators and suspects are not fixed as simple questioners and answerers, but are dynamic with the changing communicative purposes in an interrogation process. At the opening and closing stages, the identities of interrogators are largely those of spokespeople and attentive listeners. At the information gathering stage, while the suspects are expected to ideally assume three simultaneous identities of animator, author, and principal, the identities of interrogators are more complicated when the interrogators attempt to construct an ideal interrogation pattern with an aim to show the voluntary nature of the suspect’s confession. The identities the police interrogators attempt to construct include an institutional representative, a responsible professional, a fact verifier/lie detector, and a dominant professional. The shifting identities and positionalities of police interrogators and suspects are part of a delicate dance in an interrogation process, which will determine the effectiveness of an interrogation. The identity construction process this paper describes helps create patterns of interaction. The paper argues that the police’s keen awareness of their identity construction in the interrogation will facilitate the achievement of their intended interrogative purposes.
Funding statement: Funding: The work reported in this paper is supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 13BYY157) and the Postdoctoral Project at Zhejiang University.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Professor Le Cheng from Zhejiang University, China, for his invaluable suggestions and help during the process of writing this paper.
References
Appleby, S. C., S. M. Kassin & L. E. Hasel. 2013. Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime, and Law 19(2). 111–128.10.1080/1068316X.2011.613389Search in Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. 1993. Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof? British Journal of Criminology 33. 325–352.10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329Search in Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. & A. Johnson. 2007. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203969717Search in Google Scholar
Drew, P. & J. Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, G. & M. Webb. 1991. High profile, but not that high profile: Interviewing of young persons. Criminological and Legal Psychology 18. 37–46.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, Gisli H. 1992. The psychology of false confessions. New Law Journal 142. 1277–1278.Search in Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, Gisli H. 2003. The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley.10.1002/9780470713297Search in Google Scholar
Haworth, Kate. 2010. Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 169–181. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Heydon, G. 2004. Establishing the structure of police evidentiary interviews with suspects. Speech, Language and the Law 11(1). 27–49.10.1558/sll.2004.11.1.27Search in Google Scholar
Hou, Y. 2007. Investigative interrogation. Beijing: Press of Chinese Democratic Legal System.Search in Google Scholar
Inbau, F. E., J. E. Reid & J. P. Buckley. 1986. Criminal interrogation and confessions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Search in Google Scholar
Ivanic, R. 1994. I is for interpersonal: Discoursal construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education 6. 3–15.10.1016/0898-5898(94)90018-3Search in Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M. & L. S. Wrightsman. 1985. Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman (eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure, 67–94. Beverly Hills: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., S. A. Drizin, T. Grisso, G. H. Gudjonsson, R. A. Leo & A. D. Redlich. 2010. Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior 34(1). 3–38.10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6Search in Google Scholar
Leo, Richard A. 1992. From coercion to deception: the changing nature of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law, and Social Change. 18. 35–59.10.1007/BF00230624Search in Google Scholar
Leo, Richard A. 2008. Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674033702Search in Google Scholar
Linfoot-Ham, K. 2006. Conversational maxims in encounters with law enforcement officers. Speech, Language, and the Law 13(1). 23–54.10.1558/sll.2006.13.1.23Search in Google Scholar
Milne, R. & Bull, R. 1999. Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Perillo, J. & S. Kassin. 2011. Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law & Human Behavior 35(4). 327–337.10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2Search in Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. 1998. The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA & London: Sage.10.4135/9781452229133Search in Google Scholar
Tang, R. & John, S. 1999. The “I” in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 18. S23–S39.10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5Search in Google Scholar
Underwager, R. & H. Wakefield. 1992. False confessions and police deception. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 10(3). 163–174.Search in Google Scholar
Wagner, A., L. Cheng & J. Pang. 2012. Nation, identity, and multiculturalism: A socio-semiotic perspective. International Journal of the Semiotics of Law 25(2). 163–165.10.1007/s11196-011-9245-6Search in Google Scholar
Ye, N. 2010. A study of police interrogation: A holistic genre perspective. Zhejiang: Zhejiang University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Hidden meanings in legal discourse
- Comparing the incomparable and legal discourse
- Two assumptions in legal discourse: To answer for self and to tell the truth
- Le sens caché: Refoulement et impensé dans le discours de la loi sémiotique des significations cachées du discours juridique
- Multiple historical and social layers of interpretation of marital rape in England
- Revisiting judgment translation in Hong Kong
- Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
- Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
- The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse
- Exploring identities in police interrogations
- Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia
- An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language
- The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights
- Crimes of the sign: Politics and performatives in the Treason Trials of 1794
- Showing what “marriage” is: Law’s civilizing sign
- A sociosemiotic approach to the legal dispute over the crime of whoring with an underage girl in China
- Uncovering hidden meanings in legal discourse on the elderly: A semioethical perspective
- Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse
- Hidden meanings of the words “religion” and “religious” in legal discourse
- Hidden cultures in law: Metaphor and translation in legal discourse
- Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality
- Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Hidden meanings in legal discourse
- Comparing the incomparable and legal discourse
- Two assumptions in legal discourse: To answer for self and to tell the truth
- Le sens caché: Refoulement et impensé dans le discours de la loi sémiotique des significations cachées du discours juridique
- Multiple historical and social layers of interpretation of marital rape in England
- Revisiting judgment translation in Hong Kong
- Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
- Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
- The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse
- Exploring identities in police interrogations
- Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia
- An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language
- The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights
- Crimes of the sign: Politics and performatives in the Treason Trials of 1794
- Showing what “marriage” is: Law’s civilizing sign
- A sociosemiotic approach to the legal dispute over the crime of whoring with an underage girl in China
- Uncovering hidden meanings in legal discourse on the elderly: A semioethical perspective
- Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse
- Hidden meanings of the words “religion” and “religious” in legal discourse
- Hidden cultures in law: Metaphor and translation in legal discourse
- Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality
- Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
