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

如果记录供词，则更有可能被法院作为证据（Solan and Tiersma 2005）。关于自白的研究很丰富（例如Kassin 2008），但是对于律师在法庭上供认时如何使用供词的研究很少。然而，律师如何重新重新供认可能会影响陪审员的解释，因此该项目调查了律师和证人如何在证人审查和结束论点中谈论数字认罪证据。回复是指在新环境中如何使用历史文本（Johnson 2013）。除了自白之外，我们知道律师是有选择性的。证据经常被部分提供（Barlow 2015）。此外，再上下文化形式 - 像大声朗读，释义，报道的语音一样（参见Heffer，Rock and Conley 2013）具有不同的功能。例如，引用直接引用被视为准确（Philips 1986）；它减少了“互文间隙”（Bauman and Briggs 1990）。至关重要的是，如何通过词法和句法构图了重新上下文的文本（Bauman 1986; D'Hondt 2009）以及它们的执行方式（Matoesian 2000），都对它们的影响有影响。然而，很少有研究能够与选择，框架和表现相同。我广泛的研究问题是：供认如何在审判中重新定义？具体来说，我问：在词法上，句法和语言上，律师和认罪证人是如何审查和审查审查的授权和概述的授权和概述的依据，律师和fors依者是否会依据地进行了审查和进一步的审查，这是我的概述和进一步的证据吗？音频和视频录制将使用氏族（2022）然后将Elan（2022）转录和注释。文本将完全按书面抄录。为了进行分析，我将使用互动社会语言学（Gumperz 1982），因为它欣赏了“小规模相互作用的大规模社会学效应”（Jaquement 2014：475），非常适合分析法医相互作用的规则结构背景。试验重点是谈论供词的实例，然后将其与“来源”认罪证据进行比较：数字录音。从学术上讲，这项研究将增强对：重新定性化，数字证据，自白的知识。在社会上，无辜的人被认为是根据自白而被判有罪的 - 法庭上的决定取决于他们的再上行化。通过提出交流改革，这项研究可以改善司法公平。参考文章，C。2015。沉默另一个：共同被指控的妇女罪犯的性别代表。霍华德犯罪与正义杂志54（5）：469-488.Bauman，R.，1986年。故事，表现和事件：口头叙事的上下文研究。剑桥：Cambridge Up.Bauman，R。和Briggs，C。L。，1990年。诗学和表现是对语言和社会生活的关键观点。人类学年度评论19：59-88.D'Hondt，S.，2014年。通过不结论来捍卫：比利时犯罪听证会中对齐和立足的统一和地位。语言与交流36：66-82.Gumperz，J。J. 1982。话语策略。剑桥：Cambridge Up.Heffer，C.，Rock，F。和Conley，J。法律律师交流：法律中的文字旅行。纽约：牛津大学。语言人类学杂志23：113-114.Kassin，S。M. 2008。虚假的自白：原因，后果和对改革的影响。心理科学的当前方向17（4）：249-253.Matoesian，G.2000。报告的语音互文级权威：肯尼迪·史密斯强奸案中的生产媒体。杂志《语用学杂志》 32（7）：879-914。在：Tannen，D。和Alatis，J。E. Eds。语言和语言学：理论，数据和应用的相互依存关系。华盛顿：乔治敦UP，154-170。