Thesis On Courtroom Argumentation

For this discussion assignment, I will be briefly summarizing and analyzing Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca from The New Rhetoric, as well as the Realm of Rhetoric and The New Rhetoric; A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Through the readings, Perelman developed a kind of “new rhetoric” which was essentially a dense theory of argumentation, audience analysis, and values. He rejected the notion that deduction in persuasion is the key holder that can lead to truth, and advocated for a logic that takes into account categories and people’s understanding of phrases. Philosophy, Perelman argues, is a form of rhetoric (he attempts to connect philosophy and rhetoric again), a system of argument that tries to win the adherence of the “universal

There are many parts of the courtroom and the process of convicting a criminal. The courtroom work group has a major role in convicting and finalizing a case. In the courtroom work group, there are three groups of people that hold the entire courtroom together. Without the work group, the courtroom would not flow, and coming to a conclusion to the case would not be as easy. The work group is made up of the Judge, the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution. They work together to reach a result, in the case by staying in contact on a daily basis. There are many roles in the work group, and if they are not all followed through with then the results could be different than what they should be. In this paper, we will

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

In his closing argument for OJ Simpson’s criminal trial, Johnnie Cochran successfully argues for Simpson’s innocence. Repetition, appeals to audience emotion, and the use of scenarios to appeal to logic are all rhetorical devices which Cochran skillfully uses in order to create an argument that is strong and convincing to the courtroom. These devices help him shape his argument tactically in a manner and order that successfully defends OJ Simpson in the trial.

because it expresses, to a degree, the arguments of both sides of the courtroom and provides

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

In accounts of true crime seen today, rhetoric is often used to impact readers and how they receive the information presented in the article or given argument. The use of rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos ensures that the information appeals to not only one area of communication, and effectively gets across to the intended audience.

This introduction will give a brief overview of what this essay will include, also giving brief definitions of any key theories and concepts that will be used throughout.

Throughout one’s life many are prone to being in one of America’s many courtrooms at least once in their life. Whether it is for a parking ticket, a petty larceny charge, or simply jury duty most citizens have been in a courtroom once or twice. However, it is rare that one knows the many steps and processes that take place when a crime has been convicted. There is an excess number of elements that are introduced and just to name a few it all starts with the occurrence of the crime, then follows the arrest, proceeded by an arraignment, bail hearing and any more steps before finally reaching the final verdict that lands one with guilt or innocence (Neubrauer, Fadella 2013). Based on the laws in place by the United States and the Constitution one must be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt at all in the jurors minds, they cannot convict the individual of being guilty and lately this has created a lot of controversy in the United States with many cases being tried. For example, the Casey Anthony case that took place in Florida was one of the most recent states where Common Law and the Constitution were unable to be reconcilable to prove one’s guilt.

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

In court trials, there are many things that are at play. One big example is how lawyers can change a jury’s point of view of something, while only saying a couple of words. These ways are logos, pathos, and ethos. A great example is in the book, How to Kill a Mockingbird, the trial of Tom Robinson. He was accused of raping Mayella Ewell, and his lawyer and opposing lawyer use these rhetorical devices to weigh the jury’s mind.

This essay will discuss the differences in the ‘real’ courtroom, versus the ‘fictional’ courtroom, which is the depiction most of us are exposed to. In order to accurately compare the differences between the two different courtrooms, a brief summary of each must be presented. Once each of these is portrayed, an attempt to compare and contrast the two styles and the differences that exist between them can be discussed.

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness