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.
Notes
- 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.
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.
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.
Carter, E. (2011). Analysing police interviews: Laughter, confessions and the tape. London: Continuum.
Clayman, S. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text, 13(2), 159–188.
Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 1350–1771.
Eades, D. (2003). Participation of second language and second dialect speakers in the legal system. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 113–133.
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.
Gaines, P. (2011). The multifunctionality of discourse operator okay: Evidence from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(14), 3291–3215.
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heydon, G. (2011). Silence: Civil right or social privilege? A discourse analytic response to a legal problem. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2308–2316.
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.
Johnson, A. (2008). ‘From where we’re sat…’ Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text & Talk, 28(3), 327–349.
Kurzon, D. (1992). When silence may mean power. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(1), 92–95.
Kurzon, D. (1995). Right of silence: A model of interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1), 55–69.
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.
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.
Rasiah, P. (2010). A framework for the systematic analysis of evasion in parliamentary discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 664–680.
Rock, F. (2001). Policy and practice in the anonymisation of linguistic data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 6(1), 1–26.
Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
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.
Shuy, R. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation and deception. London: Sage.
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.
Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Thiesmeyer, L. (2003). Introduction. In L. Thiesmeyer (Ed.), Discourse and silencing: Representing and the language of displacement (pp. 1–37). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
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
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
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)