Argumentation

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 309–325 | Cite as

In the Field – The Development of Reasons in Criminal Proceedings

Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with argumentation in legal proceedings, namely in criminal cases. My interest is to explore how in the legal realm different argumentation fields interact, the juridical field being just one of them. The paper lays out an approach of studying argumentation in the legal realm in the framework of an ethnographic methodology by identifying the “topical rules” the participants in criminal trials adhere to. Suggesting the notion of field-dependence as a good starting point for the analysis of legal argumentation, I will give several examples of different fields of argumentation interacting in criminal proceedings. The examination of what counts as a good reason and how arguments are employed, negotiated, and evaluated within a criminal proceeding might shed light on the practice of constructing facts and arriving at decisions in court. It can furthermore point at the constitution of legal rationality and how it is produced in criminal trials. I argue that rationality in criminal proceedings is interactively accomplished by negotiating different standards of validity.

Keywords

legal argumentation ethnography argumentation fields rationality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexy R. (1983). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main, SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmuth B. (1992). Angemessenheit In: Ueding G. (ed). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 579–604Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson J.M., Drew P. (1979). Order in Court: Verbal Interaction in Juridical Settings. Macmillian Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitzer L. (1968). ‘The Rhetorical Situation’. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1:1–14Google Scholar
  5. Bogen D., Lynch M. (1996). The Spectacle of History. Duke University Press, Durham and LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogoch B. (1994). Power, Distance and Solidarity: Models of Professional-Client Interaction in an Israeli Legal Aid Setting. Discourse & Society 5(1):65–88Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu P. (1987). The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. The Hastings Law Journal 38:814–853Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu P. (1998). Praktische Vernunft Zur. Theorie des Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen R., Kudlich H. (2001). Theorie richterlichen Begründens. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Deppermann, A.: 2003, ‘Desiderata einer gesprächsanalytischen Argumentationsforschung’, in A. Deppermann and M. Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, pp. 10–26, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  11. Feteris E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodnight G.T. (1982). The Personal, Technical and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:214–227Google Scholar
  13. Habermas J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  14. Hannken-Illjes, K.: 2004, Gute Gründe geben, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  15. Hohmann H. (1996). Juristische Rhetorik In: Ueding G. (ed). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Tübingen, Niemeyer, pp. 779–832Google Scholar
  16. Komter M. (1995). The Distribution of Knowledge in Courtroom Interaction In: ten Have P., Psathas G. (eds). Situated Order. UP of America, Washington, DC, pp. 107–128Google Scholar
  17. Komter M. (1998). Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in the Netherlands. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  18. Kopperschmidt J. (1989). Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse. frommann-holzboog, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  19. Knoblauch H. (2000). Topik und Soziologie Von der sozialen zur kommunikativen Topik In: Schirren T., Ueding G. (eds). Topik und Rhetorik. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 651–668Google Scholar
  20. Luhmann, N.: 1995, Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. MGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynch M.E. (1982). Closure and Disclosure in Pre-Trial Argument. Human Studies 5:285–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard D.W. (1984). Inside Plea Bargaining Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarat A., Felstiner W.L.F. (1986). Land and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer’s Office. Law & Society Review 20(1):93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarat A., Felstiner W.L.F. (1988). Land and Social Relations: Vocabularies of Motive in Lawyer/Client Interaction. Law & Society Review 22(4):737–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schuetz J. (1981). The Genesis of Argumentative Forms and Fields In: Ziegelmuller G.R.J. (ed). Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. SCA, Annandale, pp. 279–294Google Scholar
  26. Seibert T.-M. (2004). Gerichtsrede Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Slob W.H. (2002). How to Distinguish Good and Bad Arguments: Dialogico-rhetorical Normativity. Argumentation 16:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sobota, K.: 1996, ‘Argumente und stilistische Überzeugungsmittel in Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts’, in W. Gast (ed.), Juristische Rhetorik, (Rhetorik – Ein internationales Jahrbuch, Band 15 hg. von J. Dyck, W. Jens and G. Ueding), pp. 115–136, Niemeyer, TÜbingenGoogle Scholar
  29. Strafprozessordnung: 2003, 35th EditionGoogle Scholar
  30. Terdiman R. (1987). Translator’s Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu, The Force of Law. The Hastings Law Journal 38:805–813Google Scholar
  31. Toulmin S. (1958). The Uses of Argument Cambridge UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Travers, M.: 1997, The Reality of Law, Darmouth PublishingGoogle Scholar
  33. Wenzel J.W. (1982). On Fields of Argument as Propositional Systems. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:204–213Google Scholar
  34. Wenzel, J.: 1989, ‘Relevance – and Other Norms of Argument. A Rhetorical Exploration’, in R. Maier (ed.), Norms in Argumentation, pp. 85–95, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. Willard, C. A.: 1983, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press, University of AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  36. Willard C.A. (1992). Field Theory: a Cartesian Meditation In: Benoit W.L., Hample D., Benoit P.J. (eds). Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications, Berlin/New York, pp. 437–467 (original version published in 1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFB 447/Emmy-Noether-GruppeFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations