Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKebbell, Marken_US
dc.contributor.authorDeprez, Stevenen_US
dc.contributor.authorWagstaff, Grahamen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T11:45:49Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T11:45:49Z
dc.date.issued2003en_US
dc.date.modified2009-11-05T06:03:06Z
dc.identifier.issn1068316Xen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10683160308139en_AU
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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherRoutledgeen_US
dc.publisher.placeOxford, UKen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1068316x.aspen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom49en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto59en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPsychology, Crime and Lawen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume9en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode390301en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode380199en_US
dc.titleThe direct and cross-examination of complainants and defendants in rape trials: a quatitative analysis of question type.en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2003
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


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