Janet Ainsworth

Ainsworth, Janet. “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2008, pg. 1-21.
In Janet Ainsworth’s article, “‘You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law,” she explores the linguistic complexities of legal language, specifically the usage of the Miranda Rights in interrogation.
Ainsworth first explains the power of words in our legal system with the concept of speech acts, which invoke certain actions or decrees upon their declaration. The action or decree invoked depends
Ainsworth shows that this is not the case, as the reading of the Miranda Rights was brought about by the Supreme Court as a compromise to keep the effectiveness of interrogation without violating the rights of the suspect. By making the reading of the Miranda Rights legal and necessary, suspects are made aware of their rights but are not told how to bring them about. This also means that it is incredibly easy for suspects to waive their rights by simply using incorrect wording or even not speaking at all. The reading also serves the purpose of allowing police to interrogate. Of course, the very need for the Miranda Rights suggests that there is an innate injustice in the use of interrogation. This is because of the inherent power dynamic between the police officers and the suspects. Officers hold sway over the suspects and know very well how to use legal language. The typical suspect does not and because of this sense of powerlessness is therefore submissive to the officer, which leads to meek behavior and language. They lack the authority necessary in using legal language to bring about the actions they would require, such as a lawyer, if they even realized they were in need of