Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
'Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?' Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
'Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?' Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations
Do you wish to request the book?
'Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?' Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
'Did you have permission to smash your neighbour's door?' Silly questions and their answers in police–suspect interrogations
2008
Overview
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 SO–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.
