Exploring identities in police interrogations

Abstract

Throughout a police interrogation, the identities of police interrogators and suspects are not fixed as simple questioners and answerers, but are dynamic with the changing communicative purposes in an interrogation process. At the opening and closing stages, the identities of interrogators are largely those of spokespeople and attentive listeners. At the information gathering stage, while the suspects are expected to ideally assume three simultaneous identities of animator, author, and principal, the identities of interrogators are more complicated when the interrogators attempt to construct an ideal interrogation pattern with an aim to show the voluntary nature of the suspect's confession. The identities the police interrogators attempt to construct include an institutional representative, a responsible professional, a fact verifier/lie detector, and a dominant professional. The shifting identities and positionalities of police interrogators and suspects are part of a delicate dance in an interrogation process, which will determine the effectiveness of an interrogation. The identity construction process this paper describes helps create patterns of interaction. The paper argues that the police's keen awareness of their identity construction in the interrogation will facilitate the achievement of their intended interrogative purposes.

A CiteSpace-Based Analysis of the Application of Discourse Analysis in Legal Texts

“…Several studies using discourse analysis in legal texts have been done because academics are interested in how language is used in the legislative, judicial, and law enforcement communities, among other groups. For instance, some researchers examine identity construction, power transformation, knowledge asymmetry, and discursive presuppositions by concentrating on courtroom speech (Huang et al, 2022;Feng, 2018;Pang, 2016). Certain academics have exposed the sexism, human rights, policy decisions, and LGBT marriage that are hidden behind the legislation via the legislative wording (Kirkup, 2019;Li, 2017); other scholars have focused on specific instances, such as the Evans case, the Simpson case, certain trademark issues, etc.…”