Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Legal Image’s Forgotten Aesthetics

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aesthetics and communications theories are often applied to art, media and popular culture but not within legal empirical (audiovisual) material—despite the fact that a judicial and legal process comprises a palpable utilisation of the visual as evidence of an historical reality. Based on four distinct Swedish cases, this study analyses the court’s reasoning, interpretation and use of (audio)visual evidence. Inspired by an embodied film theory, Benjamin’s thoughts on the technical-dramaturgical components of the camera and the later Barthes’ notion of the ‘punctum’, the article discusses how (audio)visual evidence cannot be disconnected from affective and aesthetic significances that ultimately can be taken to affect the perception of truth and (the crime’s) reality. The gap between theory and practice is debated and argued as beginning to co-exist; instead of seeing (visual) theory and (judicial) practice as a dichotomy, an attempt should be made for a conversation between seemingly different but in practice related areas of knowledge. The author’s aim is to suggest that photographic and filmic evidence has a particular significance in itself, which means that the relation between (judicial) interpretation and outcome should be considered within an affective and aesthetic dimension, rather than being placed and/or theorized outside of it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See, e.g., David F. Marks [24], Laura U. Marks [25, 26], Sobchack [40] and Elliot [17] on how meaning is created (physically/sensorially) and expanded beyond the cognitive and the mental.

  2. For a methodological attempt to counteract deceptive meanings in the visual evidence, also see, e.g., Silbey [38] that in a legal (Anglo-American) context argues for a procedure based on cross-examining (expert) witnesses about the film in evidence.

  3. See, e.g., Joseph [22], Arkfeld [1], Brenden and Goodhue [11], Wiggins et al. [49], Wiggins [50], Ritter [33], Sherwin [36] and Sherwin et al. [37] for a further discussion of representational digital technologies, discursive practices and judicial ramifications/repercussions.

  4. Within this interdisciplinary field, Porter [29] (cf. [12]) argues how/why visual-culture (and cultural studies) should have a more parallel space within forensic science when treating visual productions as evidence. On the relationship between visual (and popular) culture, film and law, also see, e.g., Denvir [14], Stachenfeld and Nicholson [44], Black [9], Sherwin [35], Moran et al. [27], Sarat et al. [34] and Haywad and Presdee [19].

  5. K 233390-03 (video reconstruction, case nr B 2957-04).

  6. See, e.g., the report: “Use of modern presentation technique in the criminal case process—an analysis with proposals to guidelines [Användning av modern presentationsteknik i brottsmålsprocessen - en analys med förslag till riktlinjer]”, Dnr 2002/0328 (December 2002: 54).

  7. Case nr B 6684-01 (district court); B 3662-01 (appeal court); B 4580-01 (Supreme Court).

  8. These scenes are labelled as follows: 14/6-01 circa 1:55 pm, Götabergsgatan 14/6-01 circa 2:07 pm, circa 2:09 pm, “EU-VF-185” and summary (circa 2 min). The total play time of all sequences is circa 7 min.

  9. For a further discussion on this topic, see, e.g., Loftus [23], David F. Marks [24], Laura U. Marks [25, 26] and Derrida ([15]: 97), in Bachmann [2]; Sobchack ([40]: 53ff).

  10. After a telephone conversation with the lawyer for the case (B 4580-01), Per Rudbäck (02-12-2011).

  11. In the same partial case that I deal with (the case of the Gothenburg riots; B 3662-01), a filmed and edited segment from the news (TV4 news, Sweden) was further used as evidence material. In other words, a film material, which already was interpreted and narrated by journalists (and in a journalistic discourse).

  12. Document appendix 48 [Aktbilaga 48].

  13. Also see Swedish Television, Rapport (02-12-2004), “Många turer kring Mijailovics hälsa” available at: http://svt.se/2.23796/1.295067/manga_turer_kring_mijailovics_halsa (accessed 01-02-2012).

  14. Or put differently, interpretation is never apolitical. There are, in power relations, always social and political-related emotions involved.

  15. “The remaining person wore, according to the surveillance images, a dark waist-length jacket or sweater with a hood raised over her head. … thus the unidentified person must be Christine Schürrer” (extract from Västmanland’s Court, judgment, case number B 1545-08: 24).

  16. See, e.g., Malin [Wahlberg [48]] for discussion on surveillance footage as legal evidence associated with objectivity, for instance.

References

  1. Arkfeld, Michael R. 2001. The digital practice of law: A practical reference applying technology concepts to the practice of law. Phoenix, Ariz: Law Partner Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bachmann, Michael. 2009. Derrida on film: Staging spectral sincerity. In The rhetoric of sincerity, ed. Ernst van Alphen, Mieke Bal, and Carel Smith. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barthes, Roland. 1982. Camera Lucida: Reflections on photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baudrillard, Jean. 1995. The Gulf War did not take place. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bazin, André. 1967/2005. What is cinema? Vol. 1, essays selected and Trans. Hugh Gray. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

  6. Benjamin, Walter. 2000. The work of art in an age of mechanical reproduction. In The continental aesthetics reader, ed. Clive Cazeaux. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berkaak, Odd Are. 1992. Narrative and deconstructive strategies in visualising cultural processes. In Ethnographic film aesthetics and narrative traditions: Proceedings from NAFA 2, ed. P. Crawford & J. Simonsen. Aarhus [Denmark]: Intervention Press in association with the Nordic Anthropological Film Association.

  8. Biber, Katherine. 2007. Captive images: Race, crime, photography. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Black, David A. 1999. Law in film: Resonance and representation. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. Photography: A middle-brow art. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brenden, Ann E., and John D. Goodhue. 2001. Persuasive computer presentations: The essential guide for lawyers. Chicago: Law Practice Management Section, American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Buccafusco, Christopher J. 2004. Gaining/losing perspective on the law, or keeping visual evidence in perspective. University of Miami Law Review 58: 609–651.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cockburn, David. 2001. Memories, traces and the significance of the past. In Time and memory: Issues in philosophy and psychology, ed. Christoph Hoerl, and Teresa McCormack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Denvir, John. 1996. Legal reelism: Movies as legal texts. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Derrida, Jacques. 2000. Lettres sur un aveugle: Punctum caecum. In Tourner les mots: Au bord d’un film, ed. Jacques Derrida, and Safaa Fathy, 71–126. Paris: Galilée/Arte Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  16. du Rées, Göran. 2010. The gunshots at Vasaplatsen [Skotten på Vasaplatsen—bilder som bevismaterial, ett försök att skapa en dokumentär poetik]. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University.

  17. Elliott, Paul. 2011. Hitchcock and the cinema of sensations: Embodied film theory and cinematic reception. London: I.B.Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gaines, Jane M. 1999. The real returns. In Collecting visible evidence, ed. Jane M. Gaines, and Michael Renov. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haywad, Keith J., and Mike Presdee (eds.). 2010. Framing crime, cultural criminology and the image. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ingold, Tim. 1996. Key debates in anthropology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jameson, Fredric. 1981. On interpretation. In The political unconscious: Narrative as a socially symbolic act. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  22. Joseph, Gregory P. 1997. Modern visual evidence (§ 4.06). New York: Law Journal Press.

  23. Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1976. Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review 2: 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marks, David F. 1990. On the relationship between imagery, body, and mind. In Imagery: Current developments, ed. Peter J. Hampson, David F. Marks, & John T. E. Richardson. London: Routledge.

  25. Marks, Laura U. 1998. Video haptics and erotics. In Screen, vol. 39, no. 4, 331–347.

  26. Marks, Laura U. 2000. The skin of the film: Intercultural cinema, embodiment, and the senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  27. Moran, L., et al. (eds.). 2004. Law’s moving image. London: Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nichols, Bill. 1991. Representing reality: Issues and concepts in documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Porter, G. 2007. Visual culture in forensic science. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 39: 81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Plantinga, Carl. 2011. Emotion and affect. In The Routledge companion to philosophy and film, ed. Paisley Livingston, and Carl Plantinga. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Powell, Anna. 2007. Deleuze and horror film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Rejdemo, Johanna. 2005. Bilden som bevis i brottmålsprocessen: Trovärdighet, tillförlitlighet och modern presentationsteknik (degree work in process law, Uppsala University, Sweden).

  33. Ritter, G.Christopher. 2004. Creating winning trial strategies and graphics. Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sarat, A., L. Douglas, and M. Umphrey. 2005. Law on the screen. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sherwin, Richard K. 2000. When law goes pop: The vanishing line between law and popular culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sherwin, Richard K. 2011. Visualizing law in the age of the digital baroque: Arabesques and entanglements. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sherwin, R.K., N. Feigenson, and C. Spiesel. 2006. Law in the digital age: How visual communication technologies are transforming the practice, theory, and teaching of law. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 12: 227–270.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Silbey, Jessica M. 2009. Cross-examining film. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class 8(2): 101–130.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sjöberg, Patrik. 2001. The world in pieces, a study of compilation film. Stockholm: Aura förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sobchack, Vivian. 2004. Carnal thoughts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Solomon-Godeau, Abigail. 1991. Photography at the Dock: Essays on photographic history, institutions and practices. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sontag, Susan. 1977. On photography. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sontag, Susan. 1976/2003. Photography within the humanities. In The photography reader, ed. Liz Wells.

  44. Stachenfeld, Avi J., and Christopher M. Nicholson. 1996. Blurred boundaries: An analysis of the close relationship between popular culture and the practice of law. University of San Francisco Law Review 30(4): 903–916.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tagg, John. 1988. The burden of representation: Essays on photographies and histories. Basingstoke: Macmillan Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Valverde, Marina. 2006. Representing law and order. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Sijll, Jennifer. 2005. Cinematic storytelling: The 100 most powerful film conventions every filmmaker must know. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wahlberg, Malin. 2008. Documentary time. Film and phenomenology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wiggins, E. C., M.A. Dunn, G. Cort. 2003. Federal judicial center survey on courtroom technology. Report, Washington, D.C., December.

  50. Wiggins, Elizabeth C. 2004. What we know and what we need to know about the effects of courtroom technology. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 12: 731–744.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Young, Alison. 1996. Imaging crime: Textual outlaws and criminal conversations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Young, Alison. 2005. Judging the image: Art, value, law. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Young, Alison. 2010. The scene of crime: Is there such a thing as ‘just looking’? In Framing crime, cultural criminology and the image, ed. Keith J. Haywad, and Mike Presdee. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Judgments

  1. ‘The Anna Lindh case’ (case number B 2957-04 in the appeals court; B 3454-04 in the Supreme Court in Sweden).

  2. ‘The Arboga case’ (B 1545-08, Court, B 8390-08, Appeals court).

  3. ‘The Gothenburg riots’ (B 6684-01, Court; B 3662-01, Appeals court; B 4580-01, the Supreme Court in Sweden).

  4. ‘Thomas Quick’ (case nr B 179/94).

Other judicial reports and judgments

  1. “Use of modern presentation technique in the criminal case process—an analysis with proposals to guidelines. A report from the working party on modern presentation technique in the criminal case process [Användning av modern presentationsteknik i brottsmålsprocessen - en analys med förslag till riktlinjer. En rapport från arbetsgruppen i modern presentationsteknik i brottmålsprocessen]”, Dnr 2002/0328 (December 2002: 54).

  2. ‘The Hannes Westberg case’ (B 7521-01, Court).

  3. Thomas Quick: “application to file a complaint [ansökan om stämning]” (diary number: BDR 1023-93/date 17-10-1994).

  4. Thomas Quick: Audio transcription: Memorandum prepared in conjunction with the visit to the scene of the crime by Quick. Piteå police district [Ljudtranskribering: Promemoria upprättad i samband med vallning av Quick. Piteå polisdistrikt] (21-08-1994).

Referential judicial image material

  1. Police k-nr 90308-01 (case nr B 4580-01).

  2. K 233390-03 (county criminal police technical division: video reconstruction, case nr B 2957-04) [länskriminalpolisens tekniska rotel: videorekonstruktion, mål nr B 2957-04].

  3. Luleå Court, document appendix 48, video recording from the visit to the scene of the crime 1994-08-21 (case nr: B 179/94) [Luleå Tingsrätt, aktbilaga 48, videoupptagning från vallning 1994-08-21 (mål nr: B 179/94)].

  4. Västmanland’s Court, document B 1545, document appendix 100, images from the surveillance film at Arboga Railway Station, 1900-K8001-08 (case nr B 1545-08; B 8390-08) [Västmanlands Tingsrätt, akt B 1545, aktbilaga 100, bilder från övervakningsfilm Arboga järnvägsstation, 1900-K8001-08 (mål nr B 1545-08; B 8390-08)].

Telephone interviews

  1. Althin, Peter (14-02-2012), lawyer, case nr B 2957-04.

  2. Blidberg, Agneta (14-02-2012), acting head prosecutor, case nr B 2957-04.

  3. Rudbäck, Per (02-12-2011), lawyer, case nr B 4580-01.

Web and newspaper articles

  1. Tagesson, Pelle (1994), “How can a person be so cruel? Quick shows here how he dismembers Charles, 15 [Hur kan en människa vara så grym? Här visar Quick hur han styckar Charles, 15]”, Expressen, 02-11-1994.

  2. Olsson, Thomas (2011), “Han har aldrig fullt ut lyckats erkänna ett enda mord”. Sveriges Television, 29-03-2011, available at: http://debatt.svt.se/2011/03/29/quicks-advokat-han-har-aldrig-fullt-ut-lyckats-erkanna-ett-enda-mord/(accessed 01-02-2012).

  3. Swedish Television, Rapport (2004), “Många turer kring Mijailovics hälsa”, Sveriges Television, 2004-12-02, available at: http://svt.se/2.23796/1.295067/manga_turer_kring_mijailovics_halsa (accessed 01-02-2012).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Culture and Media Studies, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden

    Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel

  2. Humanisthuset, Biblioteksgränd 3 (huvudentré), Umeå, Sweden

    Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel

  3. Doktor Abelins Gata 6, 11853, Stockholm, Sweden

    Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel

Authors
  1. Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodrigo Ferrada Stoehrel.

Additional information

This article is part of a larger Ph.D. project enrolling the interface between aesthetics and knowledge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrada Stoehrel, R. The Legal Image’s Forgotten Aesthetics. Int J Semiot Law 26, 555–577 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9280-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9280-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation