Skip to main content
Log in

Do trials have real winners?

On the harmonisation of interpretations and the construction of pseudo-consensus in legal discourse

  • Published:
Revue internationale de semiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

In this paper, narrative coherence has been looked at as an institutional strategy “in anticipation” of the verdict rather than “in retrospect” of the crime or charge. The analysis of binary notions has been instrumental in the reconstruction of the coherence between the narrative(s) and the theoretical outcomes of the criminal trial. As the abstraction and polarisation of narrative versions focus on the achievement of professional consensus, the verdict, which is almost always based on the selection of a binary option does injustice to any narrative which is unfolded in the court-room. Whether the defendant is acquitted or convicted, therefore, does not make him a winner or a loser, as his personal experience is “abducted” and institutionalised for the facilitation of smooth institutional decision-making.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Den Boer, M. Do trials have real winners?. Int J Semiot Law 6, 293–304 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099837

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099837

Keywords

Navigation