A discourse analysis was conducted on behavior between patrol officers and motorists. When motorist were asked to pull over for traffic violations, their reactions vary, such as the usage of sympathy, justification, mitigations, ignorance, and remorse. In addition, it was noted that police officers tend to depersonalize their personal discretion to the responsibility of the police hierarchical bureaucracy, in order to avoid negative social sanctions from the public. In past studies, the Criminal Justice system has analyzed the social functions between accounts in offensive behaviors. These institutions such as police and correctional services have researched the descriptions about speech acts (4). When exploring the social functions,
…show more content…
In some cases, the absence of account was present where the driver fully complied and accepted the action of committing a traffic violation. For example, the driver had several chances of inserting a justification for his deviance; however, the driver did not provide any sort of excuse. In contrast, some drivers use denial as an excuse as a method to avoid receiving sanctions. Through denial they can convince an officer by being ignorant and remorseful. In some cases, the driver claims ignorance by distancing him or herself from responsibility. In one example the driver labels her driving decision as “stupid” (13). Because she confessed for her law violation and moral failing, the officer was lenient. Furthermore, a driver can as well utilize news as excuse. By being in denial, the driver can convince an officer by claiming to have a negative epistemic of knowledge in the current situation. To illustrate, when a driver was going seventy-nine miles in a forty speed limit zone, he was pulled over. Once the officer informed him of his traffic violation, he reacted with “oh my god”, as a way of showing he is receiving news (14). When dealing with the structural characteristics of driver excuses, these similarities can also be revealed in police offices. For example, when a police officer fears to receive negative sanctions from the public, he or she shifts …show more content…
Various similarities and differences are present in these accounts, such as justifications, excuses, remorse, ignorance and blame shifting. Aside from drivers, police officers tend to as well use justifications as the reasons for giving
In some cases, the absence of account was present where the driver fully complied and accepted the action of committing a traffic violation. For example, the driver had several chances of inserting a justification for his deviance; however, the driver did not provide any sort of excuse. In contrast, some drivers use denial as an excuse as a method to avoid receiving sanctions. Through denial they can convince an officer by being ignorant and remorseful. In some cases, the driver claims ignorance by distancing him or herself from responsibility. In one example the driver labels her driving decision as “stupid” (13). Because she confessed for her law violation and moral failing, the officer was lenient. Furthermore, a driver can as well utilize news as excuse. By being in denial, the driver can convince an officer by claiming to have a negative epistemic of knowledge in the current situation. To illustrate, when a driver was going seventy-nine miles in a forty speed limit zone, he was pulled over. Once the officer informed him of his traffic violation, he reacted with “oh my god”, as a way of showing he is receiving news (14). When dealing with the structural characteristics of driver excuses, these similarities can also be revealed in police offices. For example, when a police officer fears to receive negative sanctions from the public, he or she shifts …show more content…
Various similarities and differences are present in these accounts, such as justifications, excuses, remorse, ignorance and blame shifting. Aside from drivers, police officers tend to as well use justifications as the reasons for giving