This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stokoe, E. Articles by Edwards, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

`Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?' Silly questions and their answers in police—suspect interrogations

LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY, e.h.stokoe{at}lboro.ac.uk

Derek Edwards

LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY, d.edwards{at}lboro.ac.uk

We examine the asking and answering of `silly questions' (SQs) (for example, `might sound a bit silly, but do you know whose window it is?') in British police interviews with suspects, the courses of action SQs initiate, and the institutional contingencies they are designed to manage. We show how SQs are asked at an important juncture toward the ends of interviews, following police officers' formulations of suspects' testimony (e.g. `so you've admitted throwing eggs'). These formulations are confirmed or even collaboratively produced by suspects. We then examine the design of SQs and show how they play a central role in the articulation of suspects' reported `state of mind', and particularly attributing to them criminal intentions constitutive of the offence with which they may be charged. In cases where SQs do not produce unambiguous answers about `state of mind' or intentionality, police officers move toward direct questioning about suspects' intent, thus making explicit the project of SQs in such interviews. Following SQ—Answer sequences, police officers reformulate suspects' testimony, with subtle but crucial differences with regard to suspects' knowledge state and criminal intent. Suspects overwhelmingly align with police officers' formulations of their testimony, and such agreements have the interactional shape of affiliation. Yet SQs may work in ways that are institutionally adversarial with regard to criminal charges, relevant evidence and self-incriminating testimony.

Key Words: categories of crime • intentionality • neighbourhood crime • police interrogations • silly questions • state of mind

Discourse Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, 89-111 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1461445607085592


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Tracy and J. Robles Questions, questioning, and institutional practices: an introduction Discourse Studies, April 1, 2009; 11(2): 131 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]