ABSTRACT. This research synthesizes existing studies and investigates organizational rules in interpreter-mediated police interviews. Using data from Pew Research Center, I performed analyses and made estimates regarding percentage of officers saying it is very/somewhat/not too/not at all important for officers to have detailed knowledge of the people, places and culture in the areas where they work, percentage of rank-and-file officers saying very few/none/all or most/some of the people in the neighborhoods they routinely patrol share their values and beliefs, percentage of officers saying they would rate relations between the police in their department and particular groups (Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/Asians) in the community they serve as excellent/good/only fair/poor, percentage of officers saying they (strongly) agree that in certain areas of the city it is more useful for an officer to be aggressive than to be courteous/some people can only be brought to reason the hard and physical way, percentage of rank-and-file officers saying they have received four or more hours/less than four hours/none training in each of these areas in the past twelve months: firearms training involving shoot/don’t shoot scenarios/nonlethal methods to control a combative or threatening individual/how to deal with individuals who are having a mental health crisis/how to de-escalate a situation so it is not necessary to use force/bias and fairness/how to deal with people so they feel they have been treated fairly and respectfully, and percentage of officers saying it is very/somewhat/not too/not at all important for law enforcement officers to have a good knowledge of what scientific research shows are effective policing strategies.

Keywords: organizational rule; interpreted-mediated police interview; defendant; testifier

How to cite: Bacalu, Filip (2019). “Organizational Rules in Interpreted-Mediated Police Interviews,” Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 18: 113–118.

Received 1 October 2018 • Received in revised form 16 November 2018
Accepted 18 November 2018 • Available online 10 January 2019

doi:10.22381/LPI1820196