Refashioning confession: The recontextualisation of digital confession evidence in court

重塑认罪：法庭上数字认罪证据的重新语境化

• 批准号: 2747169
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2022
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2022 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2747169
• 关键词: Refashioning; confession; recontextualisation; digital; evidence

If a confession is recorded, it is more likely to be admitted to court as evidence (Solan and Tiersma 2005). Research on confessions is plentiful (e.g. Kassin 2008), but there are very few studies into how lawyers use confessions when cases go to court. Yet how lawyers reformulate confessions might affect jurors' interpretations, so this project investigates how lawyers and witnesses talk about digital confession evidence in witness examination and closing arguments.Recontextualisation refers to how historic texts are used in new contexts (Johnson 2013). Looking beyond confessions, we know that lawyers are selective; evidence is often presented partially (Barlow 2015). Further, recontextualisation forms - like reading aloud, paraphrasing, reported speech (see e.g. Heffer, Rock and Conley 2013) - have distinct functions. Quoting directly, for example, is seen as accurate (Philips 1986); it reduces the 'intertextual gap' (Bauman and Briggs 1990). Crucially, how recontextualised texts are framed, lexically and syntactically (Bauman 1986; D'hondt 2009), as well as how they are performed (Matoesian 2000), all contribute to their impact. Yet few studies give equivalent weight to selection, framing and performance.My broad research question is:How are confessions recontextualised at trial?Specifically, I ask:How - lexically, syntactically and paralinguistically - do lawyers and confession witnesses re-, de- and co-construct the meaning, authority and significance of confessions during witness examination and closing arguments?To answer this, I will select three trials with corresponding digital confession evidence. Audio and video recordings will be transcribed and annotated using CLAN (2022) then ELAN (2022). Texts will be transcribed exactly as written. To analyse, I will use interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982) because it appreciates the "large-scale sociological effects of small-scale interactions" (Jaquement 2014: 475), ideal for analysing the rule-bound context of forensic interaction. The trial foci are instances where confessions are spoken about, which will then be compared to the 'source' confession evidence: the digital recordings.Academically, this study will enhance knowledge of: recontextualisation, digital evidence, confessions. Societally, innocent people are found guilty based on confessions - a decision made in court dependent on their recontextualisation. By suggesting communicative reforms, this study could improve judicial fairness.ReferencesBarlow, C. 2015. Silencing the other: Gendered representations of co-accused women offenders. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 54(5): 469-488.Bauman, R. 1986. Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Bauman, R. and Briggs, C. L. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59-88.D'hondt, S. 2014. Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings. Language & Communication 36: 66-82.Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. Legal-lay communication: Textual travels in the law. New York: Oxford UP.Jaquement, M. 2014. Introduction to the volume. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 23: 113-114.Kassin, S. M. 2008. False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(4): 249-253.Matoesian, G. 2000. Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32(7): 879-914.Philips, S. 1986. Reported speech as evidence in an American trial. In: Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. E. eds. Language and linguistics: The interdependence of theory, data, and application. Washington: Georgetown UP, 154-170.Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. 2005. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justic

如果认罪被记录下来，则更有可能被法庭接纳为证据（Solan 和 Tiersma 2005）。关于口供的研究很多（例如Kassin 2008），但关于律师在案件进入法庭时如何使用口供的研究却很少。然而，律师如何重新表述口供可能会影响陪审员的解释，因此该项目调查律师和证人如何在证人询问和结案陈词中谈论数字口供证据。重新语境化是指如何在新的背景下使用历史文本（Johnson 2013）。除了认罪之外，我们知道律师是有选择性的；证据通常是部分呈现的（Barlow 2015）。此外，重新语境化形式——如朗读、释义、报告演讲（参见 Heffer、Rock 和 Conley 2013）——具有独特的功能。例如，直接引用被认为是准确的（Philips 1986）；它减少了“互文差距”（Bauman 和 Briggs 1990）。至关重要的是，重新语境化的文本如何在词汇和句法上构建（Bauman 1986；D'hondt 2009），以及它们的执行方式（Matoesian 2000），都有助于其影响。然而，很少有研究对选择、框架和表现给予同等的重视。我的广泛研究问题是：在审判中如何将口供重新语境化？具体来说，我问：律师和口供证人如何在词汇、句法和副语言上重新、解构和解释口供？共同构建证人询问和结案陈词中口供的意义、权威性和重要性？为了回答这个问题，我将选择三个具有相应数字口供证据的审判。音频和视频记录将使用 CLAN (2022) 和 ELAN (2022) 进行转录和注释。文本将完全按照书面文字进行转录。为了进行分析，我将使用交互社会语言学（Gumperz 1982），因为它欣赏“小规模交互的大规模社会学效应”（Jaquement 2014：475），非常适合分析法医交互的规则约束上下文。审判焦点是谈论口供的实例，然后将其与“源”口供证据：数字录音进行比较。在学术上，这项研究将增强以下方面的知识：重新语境化、数字证据、口供。在社会上，无辜的人会根据供词被判有罪——法庭上的决定取决于他们的重新背景。通过建议沟通改革，这项研究可以提高司法公正性。参考文献Barlow, C. 2015。《压制对方：同案被告女性罪犯的性别代表性》。 《霍华德犯罪与司法杂志》54(5): 469-488。Bauman, R. 1986。故事、表演和事件：口头叙述的语境研究。剑桥：剑桥大学。Bauman, R. 和 Briggs, C. L. 1990。诗学和表演作为语言和社会生活的批判性观点。人类学年度评论 19: 59-88.D'hondt, S. 2014。通过脱离关系进行辩护：比利时刑事听证会的联盟和立足点的变迁。语言与交流 36: 66-82。Gumperz, J. J. 1982。话语策略。剑桥：剑桥 UP.Heffer, C.、Rock, F. 和 Conley, J. 法律外行沟通：法律中的文本传播。纽约：Oxford UP.Jaquement, M. 2014。该卷简介。 《语言人类学杂志》23：113-114。Kassin，S.M. 2008。虚假供词：原因、后果和对改革的影响。 Current Directions in Psychology Science 17(4): 249-253.Matoesian, G. 2000。报告言论中的互文权威：肯尼迪·史密斯强奸案审判中的制作媒体。 Journal of Pragmatics 32(7): 879-914.Philips, S. 1986。在美国审判中将演讲作为证据。见：Tannen, D. 和 Alatis, J. E. 编辑。语言和语言学：理论、数据和应用的相互依赖。华盛顿：Georgetown UP，154-170。Solan, L. M. 和 Tiersma, P. 2005。谈到犯罪：刑事司法的语言