The use of rhetoric in the case of a convicted sex offender - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

The use of rhetoric in the case of a convicted sex offender

Zoe Walkington and Prof Laurence Alison

IIIRG 2010 Norway

Background

The traditional cognitive approach has dominated collaborative efforts between psychologists and practitioners

Particularly strong research output on witness interviewing

Suspect interviewing to date has tended to focus on the interviewer (although some exceptions e.g. Haworth, 2006 &

Benneworth

, 2007)

The focus on general principles of effective interviewing ...perhaps to the detriment of the subtle dynamism of more human qualitative factors

Suspect interviews are EMOTIONAL events

Developing discrepancies in Stories

“There are many competing versions of the criminal event around which the participants negotiate”(Auburn et al. 1995 p.356)

Story of interviewer and interviewee is likely to disagree

Obviously

useful evidentially

Both

suspects and interviewers seek to develop discrepancies in the others account

Consideration of how this is rhetorically managed may provide useful information about the

qualitative element of effectiveness

in interviewing.

How is the jointly agreed account achieved rhetorically?

Case Study

Mark

Chamberlen

* Serial Sex offender, between 1997-2003, 15 offences against girls and women aged between 12 and 25 years old

Unusually resistant suspect, utilises a variety of interesting rhetorical strategies

2

interviewers 1 male Peter* 1 female Jill *

This interview – he has been re-arrested at home and detained overnight the night before Best practice interview

* All names have been changed

Research Question

How are discrepancies rhetorically managed in suspect interviews?

Considered two main strategies...

Justification and Criticism

Rogerian

Arguments/Rhetoric

Major discrepancy about what story they will focus on:

Police – what happened 8 years ago

Chamberlen

– what happened at arrest and last night

Justification and Criticism

1. Criticisms of the police by

Chamberlen

“like I say I've just had enough

Ive

Ive

had enough now... completely n I don't care what happens I’ve had enough completely because... n and it all stems from L and H turning up at my house and not even allowing me a phone call before or them not even phoning my work to go sick so have people phoning up... people harassing my Mrs ...Sunday People turning up at my house because everybody knows the courtesy of that ten seconds the

stress

and pressure I'm under is unbelievable”

Justification and Criticism

2. Consistency and Inconsistency as Justification and Criticism

Chamberlen

states he is consistent

“I've cooperated throughout I did all the all that video ID whatever they call it... everything ...

sat

there

and said to you I don't know anything about that I don't know anything about that I don't know

anything about that”

Chamberlen

states police are inconsistent

“You said to me last night there were no more interviews now it were well if you’d gone to that

address last night ...And now I’ve got this and this

i’nt

more questions this is just going over what I’vewhat I’ve said yesterday”Police justification and implied criticism “Last night we had planned to take you to the address because we believed that you'd ag agreed to do so and thenwe were told that you weren't willing to do so so the plans that we had in place were... er... upset.”Police use of consistency as a criticism But you’re here today and you were here yesterday for something totally different Yeah

Rogerian Arguments

Rogerian

arguments

Also called ‘common ground’ arguments

Negotiating strategy in which opposing views are described as objectively as possible

and common goals are identified in an effort to establish common ground and reach

agreement

Fairly state opposing position

Say in what contexts it might be valid (imagining with empathy*)

State own position

Say when it might be valid

State how other persons position might benefit from elements of your position

Important to state the opposing viewpoint first without evaluation (either overt or

covert)

*thinking carefully about how another person could hold views that are different from your own

Active Listening to Chamberlens

situation – attending to pathos

I: This is what I have to say

M: You

dont

understand Peter what this is doing to me I could

fuckin

do my self in

I: well right

M: You

dont

understand

Ive

had enough

I: Im gonna take everything on board “Yeah but Peter what Im saying to you is for me not to answer em...is not me...you KNOW that...Ive helped yer out for hours on end and told you everything I know personal stuffembarassing

stuff

stuff

that you know I

wanna

mek a success of my life” I : Alright M: My lifes fucked ruined because of itI: Why?M: Because it is...I can never go back to work ever ...Can I?

Active listening – summarising and agreeing

MC :Well that's fine but (Pause) [audible sigh] go on I'm sorry for being irate but I’m really am at the end of me tether now I've had enough... completely

I: Its a situation... not of our making

MC: It

is

your making

I: It Its a situation the circumstances have determined that we've ended up in this situation Okay is that right?

Explaining their situation

“

What were going to do is we

are

going to go through the evidence with you... and things like yesterday when we go through things if we talk to you about what you were doing then whether dates and things prompt you things prompt your memory sometimes and you do recall things

”.

Discussion

Both

Chamberlen

and the interviewers made use of rhetoric to “influence the soul through words”

Suspect utilised rhetorical strategies of justification and criticism - made the interview very difficult

Mirrors prior research (e.g. Haworth, 2006) on the ability of suspects to show resistance and therefore resist the police controlling the relevant narratives

Rogerian

principles are just one framework to consider how police may be able to deal with highly emotive individuals

Might be fruitful to explore further the area of

rogerian

rhetoric (or indeed other forms of therapeutic argument) in working with suspects

References

Auburn, T., Drake, S., &

Willig

, C. (1995). “You punched him didn’t you?”: versions of violence in accusatory interviews.

Discourse and Society, 6

(3): 353-386.

Billig

, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge Cambridge

University Press.

Foss, S.K., Foss, K.A. & Trapp, R. (1991).

Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric.

Second Edition Illinois: Waveland Press.

Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse,

Discourse and Society, 17(6

) 739-759Levine, T., & McCornack, S. (1991). The dark side of trust: Conceptualising and measuring types of communicative suspicion. Communication Quarterly, 39, 325-339.Linell, P., Alemyr, L. & Jonsson, L. (1993). Admission of guilt as a communicative project in judicial settings, Journal of Pragmatics, 19(2): 153-76. Rogers, C.R. (1980). A way of being. New York Houghton: Mifflin.