Exploring types and functions of questions in police interviews

There is a proliferation of categorization schemes in the scientific literature that have mostly been developed from psychologists’ understanding of the nature of linguistic interactions. This has a led to problems in defining question types used by interviewers. Based on the principle that the overarching purpose of an interview is to elicit information and that questions can function both as actions in their own right and as vehicles for other actions, a Conversational Analysis approach was used to analyse a small number of police interviews. The analysis produced a different categorization of question types and, in particular, the conversational turns fell into two functional types: (i) Topic Initiation Questions and (ii) Topic Facilitation Questions. We argue that forensic interviewing requires a switch of focus from the ‘words’ used by interviewers in question types to the ‘function’ of conversational turns within interviews.

The discursive construction of evidence in police interviews:case study of a rape suspect

This article presents an analysis of the discursive construction of evidence in an English police interview with a rape suspect. The analytic findings differ from previous research on police–suspect interview discourse, in that here the interviewers actively lead an interviewee to produce defence evidence. The article seeks to make the following contributions: (i) it demonstrates the interactional mechanisms through which the interviewers co-construct the interviewee’s own version of events, and highlights the potential legal ramifications by focusing on the construction of one key evidential aspect, namely, consent; (ii) it lends weight to the hypothesis that interviewer agendas are strongly determinative of interview outcomes in terms of the evidential account produced, while making the important new contribution of showing that this is not simply a case of police interviewers being inevitably prosecution-focused; and (iii) it aims to provoke further investigation into the significance of interviewer discursive influence in cases where consent is at issue, against a backdrop of increasing numbers of rape cases being discontinued by the police at this early stage of the criminal justice process.

An analysis of police interview discourse and its role(s) in the judicial process

This study analyses the current role of police-suspect interview discourse in the England & Wales criminal justice system, with a focus on its use as evidence. A central premise is that the interview should be viewed not as an isolated and self-contained discursive event, but as one link in a chain of events which together constitute the criminal justice process. It examines: (1) the format changes undergone by interview data after the interview has taken place, and (2) how the other links in the chain – both before and after the interview – affect the interview-room interaction itself. It thus examines the police interview as a multi-format, multi-purpose and multi-audience mode of discourse. An interdisciplinary and multi-method discourse-analytic approach is taken, combining elements of conversation analysis, pragmatics, sociolinguistics and critical discourse analysis. Data from a new corpus of recent police-suspect interviews, collected for this study, are used to illustrate previously unaddressed problems with the current process, mainly in the form of two detailed case studies. Additional data are taken from the case of Dr. Harold Shipman. The analysis reveals several causes for concern, both in aspects of the interaction in the interview room, and in the subsequent treatment of interview material as evidence, especially in the light of s.34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The implications of the findings for criminal justice are considered, along with some practical recommendations for improvements. Overall, this study demonstrates the need for increased awareness within the criminal justice system of the many linguistic factors affecting interview evidence.