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

1. The use of rhetoric in the case of a convicted sex offender Zoe Walkington and Prof Laurence Alison IIIRG 2010 Norway

2. Background • The traditional cognitive approach has dominated collaborative efforts between psychologists and practitioners • Particularly strong research output on witness interviewing • Suspect 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

3. 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 evidentially • Both 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?

4. Case Study • Mark 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

5. Research Question • How are discrepancies rhetorically managed in suspect interviews? Considered two main strategies... • Justification and Criticism • Rogerian 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

6. Justification and Criticism 1. Criticisms of the police by Chamberlen • “like I say I've just had enough IveIve 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”

7. 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 there and said to you I don't know anything about that I don't know anything about that I don't know anything 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 that address last night ...And now I’ve got this and this i’nt more questions this is just going over what I’ve what 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 then we 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

8. Rogerian Arguments Rogerian arguments Also called ‘common ground’ arguments Negotiating strategy in which opposing views are described as objectively as possible and common goals are identified in an effort to establish common ground and reach agreement • 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 or covert) *thinking carefully about how another person could hold views that are different from your own

9. 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: Imgonna 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 yerout for hours on end and told you everything I know personal stuff embarassingstuff stuff that you know I wannameka success of my life” I : Alright M: My lifes fucked ruined because of it I: Why? M: Because it is...I can never go back to work ever ...Can I?

10. 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 making MC: It is your making I: It Its a situation the circumstances have determined that we've ended up in this situation Okay is that right?

11. 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”.

12. Discussion • Both 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

13. References • Auburn, 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.