Deconstructing Crime Through Language

  • Rachael AplinEmail author


This chapter illustrates dissembling through the craft of language in the incident summary write-up, in which some officers construct an alternative “paper” reality that bears little resemblance to HBA victim narratives. Numerous patterned police practices are identified, such as altering the “crime” by removing key words, presenting information in formulaic compressed closed question format, using language to distort and trivialise the report; sin by omission is a prevalent discretionary practice, as 71% of DASH risk assessments contain incomplete or missing data. The “family dispute” theme and the unwillingness of victims in disclosing offences replicate traditional domestic abuse explanations. Such stratagems dilute or entirely negate the risks to victims, stifle legitimate lines of enquiry, decriminalise cases and wrongly justify officers’ no-crime decisions.


Policing honour-based abuse Deconstructing crime through language Sin by omission DASH risk assessments Interpreters 


  1. Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2011). Analyzing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 77–92). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Bayley, D., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belur, J. (2008). Is policing domestic violence institutionally racist? A case study of South Asian women. Policing and Society, 18(4), 426–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bittner, E. (1978). The functions of the police in modern society. In P. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Policing: A view from the street (pp. 32–50). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, M. (1981). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Crank, J. (2016). Understanding police culture (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. DASH risk model: Saving lives and changing lives through early identification, intervention and prevention. (2009). [Online]. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from
  8. Edwards, S. (1986). Police attitudes and dispositions in domestic disputes: The London study. Police Journal, 59(3), 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericson, R., & Haggerty, K. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Forced marriage and honour-based violence policy and procedure. (2013). [This police force].Google Scholar
  11. Hanmer, J., Radford, J., & Stanko, E. (2013 [1989]). Improving policing for women: The way forward. In J. Hanmer, J. Radford, & E. Stanko (Eds.), Women, policing, and male violence: International perspectives (pp. 185–201). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). (2014). Everyone’s business: Improving the police response to domestic abuse. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  13. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). (2015). The depths of dishonour: Hidden voices and shameful crimes. An inspection of the police response to honour-based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. London: TSO.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbs, D. (1989). Policing in the vernacular. In D. E. Downes (Ed.), Crime and the city (pp. 154–181). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holdaway, S. (1983). Inside the British police. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Home Office. (2013). Information for local areas on the change to the definition of domestic violence and abuse. Produced in partnership with AVA, Against Violence & Abuse.Google Scholar
  17. Kappeler, V., Sluder, R., & Alpert, G. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  18. Knott, J., & Miller, G. (1987). Reforming bureaucracy: The politics of institutional choice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Lipsky, M. (2010 [1980]). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (Expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Lynn, N., & Lea, S. (2012, March). Civil disputes and crime recording refusals, disinterest and power in police witcraft. British Journal of Criminology, 52(2), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manning, P. (1977). The social organisation of policing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Manning, P. (1978). Lying, secrecy and social control. In P. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Policing: A view from the street (pp. 238–255). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Manning, P. (2008). Performance rituals. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 2(3), 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manning, P. (2009). Policing as self-audited practice. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 10(5–6), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Messick, D. (1999). Dirty secrets: Strategic uses of ignorance and uncertainty. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organisations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings. Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  27. Morant, N., & Edwards, E. (2011, July–August). Police responses to diversity: A social representational study of rural British policing in a changing representational context. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Myhill, A., & Johnson, K. (2016). Police use of discretion in response to domestic violence. Criminology and Criminal Justice: An International Journal, 16(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prior, L. (2011). Using documents in social research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 94–110). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. Oxon and Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  31. Richards, L. (2009). Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour Based Violence (DASH, 2009): Risk identification and assessment and management model. [Online]. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
  32. Roberts, K., Campbell, G., & Lloyd, G. (2014). Honor-based violence: Policing and prevention (Advances in Police Theory and Practice Series). London: CRC Press; Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, A. (2006). Reducing repeat victimization among high-risk victims of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(8), 761–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson, A., Myhill, A., Roberts, J., & Tilley, N. (2016). Risk-led policing of domestic abuse and the DASH risk model (pp. 1–46). [Online]. Retrieved November, 23 2016, from
  35. Safe Lives. (2015). Safe Lives dash risk checklist: Frequently asked questions. [Online]. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from
  36. Shearing, C., & Ericson, R. (1991). Culture as figurative action. British Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tifft, L. (1978). Control systems, social bases of power and power exercise in police organisations. In P. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Policing: A view from the street (pp. 90–105). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Van Maanen, J. (1978). Kinsmen in repose: Occupational perspectives of patrolmen. In P. Manning & J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Policing: A view from the street (pp. 115–128). Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Young, M. (1991). An inside job: Policing and police culture in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations