Reshmi Nair

LING239

Concept Map

In this chapter, Shuy introduces the topic of language in confession and analyzing written

confessions. Some of the concepts that Shuy talks about in this chapter are the language in a

confession and for the speech act confession to be actual, what content it should entail. He

explains the case of Michael Carter and how when Shuy had listened and transcribed his

confession, it became clear that it was not an actual confession, but was a speech act committed

to how the police officers interrogated him. He brings in the concept of how the officers have to

question the witness before telling them that they did commit a crime, which in actuality they

may not have committed resulting in an innocent being incarcerated for a crime he or she did not

commit. Another concept that Shuy brings in the concept of how the police officer

misinterpreted the confession, resulting in the confession not being a truthful one and was an

interpreted version of the officer. This concept introduces us to the topic of forensic stylistics and

authorship analysis.

For a confession to be considered an actual and real confession, it should have the basic factor

that the person did a wrong and is confessing that wrong. They may or may not sound guilty

about the act but they do accept the responsibility for that act which makes it a confession. In the

case of Michael Carter, the confession had “didn’t do it’ or ‘I didn’t shoot nobody’ etc. were his

phrases but at not point did he accept responsibility for the act of shooting the cop and so this

cannot be considered as a confession. He only admitted that he accompanied two boys on

bicycles who were going to rob houses and he was going to look out for them. Shuy even shows

us how the officers do try to force Michael to confess to a crime that he did not commit, which

questions the authenticity of such confession.

The second concept is about how Shuy and the psychologist had responded in court as to how

the officers should actually ask questions to get a reply instead of forcing the witness to accept

responsibility for an action that they may not have committed. He says how they should ask

questions by starting with open ended questions and moving to wh- questions and then to

probing and yes or no questions. The concept of being asked in such a manner helps both the

officer and the witness since they may become a little less nervous while replying to open ended

questions or wh- questions and may be more detailed than when the officer just starts the

question with ‘We know you did it… so you may just tell us about what happened’ where the

witness is more nervous and may at some point lose faith and confess to a crime he or she did not

commit.

The third concept is the misinterpretation of confessions by the officers, which leads to stylistics

and authorship. Shuys explains how there were certain phrases such as ‘myself’ that Michael did

not really use while one of the officers did use frequently questioning the authenticity of the

written confession. He even gives us a whole table to indicate how Michael was misinterpreted,

which questions the authorships of such confessions, since Michael’s confession was written as

an interpreted version by the officer, it questions the authenticity of such a confession especially

when he never confessed to the crime, which was shown in the tape recorded version. Shuy

brings in with this chapter the importance of having an audio or video recorded version of the

interrogation and confession.

Thus, this chapter helps us understand confessions and analyzing confessions and also to analyze

the questions that lead to an alleged confession. He even lets us understand how officers when

giving written confession may give their interpreted version of the confession which can be

analyzed with stylistics.