Skip to main content

The Use of No Comment by Suspects in Police Interviews

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Exploring Silence and Absence in Discourse

Part of the book series: Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse ((PSDS))

Abstract

The right to remain silent is an important part of the caution rights and is provided as part of the police-suspect interview before the process of creating an evidential account begins. However, though suspects may respond ‘no comment’ to officers’ questioning to invoke their right to silence, the officer can continue asking questions regarding the alleged offence. This chapter aims to analyse examples where no comment is used by suspects and how officers respond to these verbalised silences and the absences which result in the account creation process. From a corpus of 22 interviews collected from one UK police constabulary, seven interviews were identified where suspects used the no comment response, either for part of the interview or for its entirety. The analysis uses tools from Conversation Analysis to show how officers will employ certain discursive strategies including challenges, making inferences and creating summaries, to either continue pursuing certain lines of enquiry or to switch topic to fulfil other institutional goals. The lack of response to certain questions is considered in terms of interview structure, and whether officers challenge or question these rights invoked by the suspect (Carter, Analysing police interviews: Laughter, confessions and the tape. London: Continuum, 2011). Expanding on previous research on no comment use during police interviews, (Stokoe, Edwards, & Edwards, “No comment” responses to questions in police investigative interviews. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades, & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Coercion and consent in the legal process: Linguistic and discursive perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) this chapter provides further insight into the metadiscourse of silence, considering the impact of silence and absence in a context where the exact wording of what is or is not said has potentially life changing consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This condition was an important part of enabling this research. The interviews themselves were contributed by the police on cassette tape for transcription on police office premises. I made contact with the British Criminological Association, who confirmed that anonymised transcripts do not constitute personal data, and as such can be used for research purposes. The use of the data for research was approved by the university ethics committee in consultation with the police constabulary regarding the steps taken to ensure confidentiality. For further information regarding anonymity in linguistic research, see Rock (2001).

  2. 2.

    Heydon (2005) similarly notes how officers would often provide the floor to the suspect so that they would provide a confession due to the pressure of needing to respond and fill the silence .

References

  • Ainsworth, J. (2008). ‘You have the right to remain silent… but only if you ask for it just so’: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 15(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alagözhi, N., & Sahin, S. (2011). Silence as a multi-purpose speech act in Turkish political discourse. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 3008–3013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, E. (2011). Analysing police interviews: Laughter, confessions and the tape. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayman, S. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text, 13(2), 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 1350–1771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eades, D. (2003). Participation of second language and second dialect speakers in the legal system. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 113–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridland, V. (2003). Quiet in the court: Attorneys’ silencing strategies during courtroom cross-examination. In L. Thiesmeyer (Ed.), Discourse and silencing: Representing and the language of displacement (pp. 119–139). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, P. (2011). The multifunctionality of discourse operator okay: Evidence from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3291–3215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydon, G. (2011). Silence: Civil right or social privilege? A discourse analytic response to a legal problem. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2308–2316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191–222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. (2008). ‘From where we’re sat…’ Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text & Talk, 28(3), 327–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzon, D. (1992). When silence may mean power. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(1), 92–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzon, D. (1995). Right of silence: A model of interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1), 55–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzon, D. (2008). The silent witness. In J. Gibbons & M. T. Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxburgh, G. E., Myklebust, T., & Grant, T. (2010). The question of question types in police interviews: A review of the literature from a psychological and linguistic perspective. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasiah, P. (2010). A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 664–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, F. (2001). Policy and practice in the anonymisation of linguistic data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuy, R. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation and deception. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokoe, E., Edwards, D., & Edwards, H. (2016). “No comment” responses to questions in police investigative interviews. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades, & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Coercion and consent in the legal process: Linguistic and discursive perspectives (pp. 289–318). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiesmeyer, L. (2003). Introduction. In L. Thiesmeyer (Ed.), Discourse and silencing: Representing and the language of displacement (pp. 1–37). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 12.1 Interview data

Appendix 2: Transcription Key

(.):

pauses of less than a second

(number):

pauses of over a second, provided within seconds, e.g. (3.2) is a pause of 3.2 seconds

[word]:

overlapping speech

-:

stuttering speech where a certain sound is repeated

?:

questioning intonation

↑:

rising intonation (not necessarily a questioning intonation)

↓:

falling intonation

(h):

exhalation with the number of ‘h’s indicating length of breath

word :

at a louder volume

°word°:

at a lower volume

(laughs):

laugh

<word>:

slow speech

>word<:

fast speech

=:

turns which run on with no pause between speakers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Garbutt, J. (2018). The Use of No Comment by Suspects in Police Interviews. In: Schröter, M., Taylor, C. (eds) Exploring Silence and Absence in Discourse. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64580-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64580-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64579-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64580-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics