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

Zoe Walkington and Prof Laurence Alison IIIRG 2010 Norway

BackgroundThe traditional cognitive approach has dominated

collaborative efforts between psychologists and practitioners Particularly strong research output on witness

interviewingSuspect 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 evidentiallyBoth 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 StudyMark 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 CriticismRogerian 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 Criticism1. 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 thereand said to you I don't know anything about that I don't know anything about that I don't knowanything 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 thataddress 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 argumentsAlso called ‘common ground’ arguments Negotiating strategy in which opposing views are described as objectively as

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

reachagreement 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 orcovert)

*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 stuff

embarassing 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 makingMC: It is your makingI: 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”.

DiscussionBoth 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

ReferencesAuburn, 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) 739-759

Levine, 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.