Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKebbell, Mark
dc.contributor.authorDeprez, Steven
dc.contributor.authorWagstaff, Graham
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:28:07Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:28:07Z
dc.date.issued2003
dc.date.modified2009-11-05T06:03:06Z
dc.identifier.issn1068316X
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10683160308139
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/15458
dc.description.abstractThis paper is a post-hoc examination of the questioning used in six rape trials. Questions asked in the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of six complainants and five defendants were coded into different categories. The categories comprised "open", "closed", "leading", "heavily-leading" and "yes/no" questions; questions that are known to increasingly constrain witness responses. Additionally, the frequency of "multiple questions", and questions with "negatives" and "double negatives" were recorded; questions that witnesses have difficulty understanding. Broadly speaking, results showed that questions in both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination were of a constraining nature and allowed witnesses little opportunity to provide complete accounts of alleged events, particularly during cross-examination. Multiple questions were frequent although negatives were comparatively rare, and double negatives did not occur. Similar forms of questioning were used for complainants as for defendants, although more questions were asked of complainants than defendants in cross-examination. The results are discussed in terms of the adverse influence of these questioning strategies on the completeness and accuracy of witnesses' responses, and the similarity in "combativeness" of lawyers in their examination of complainants and defendants.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherRoutledge
dc.publisher.placeOxford, UK
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1068316x.asp
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom49
dc.relation.ispartofpageto59
dc.relation.ispartofissue1
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPsychology, Crime and Law
dc.relation.ispartofvolume9
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCriminology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPsychology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchLaw
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1602
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1701
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1801
dc.titleThe direct and cross-examination of complainants and defendants in rape trials: a quatitative analysis of question type.
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.date.issued2003
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorKebbell, Mark R.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record