Skip to main content

Blog Post- Argumentation in Law


In this blog post I will talk about Argumentation in Law. Aristotle defines Forensic rhetoric as one that deals with questions of the past and that is what we use in legal arguments. Legal argumentation deals with claims about what has happened in the past and finds facts about what has happened that help them explain what had happened. In a legal argument the narratives presented by each side are based on the facts found and are therefore trust worthy of the court. In a legal argumentation the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff one who brings the case and not on the defendant. It is the prosecutor/plaintiff’s job to provide enough facts and evidence that the court believes it to be true. And can make the decision without any doubt.

Another important part of a legal argument is the time. When dealing with legal matters things have to be done in a timely manner otherwise the court can reject to bear the case. The example that comes to my mind is the Kavnaugh hearing and Dr. ford’s testimony. When the allegations of sexual assault came out there was a lot of talk about the timing when this incident had taken place. It had been about 30 years since the event took place and therefore there was a lot of debate about the fact that age was a huge factor in Kavanaugh’s actions. The timing of the case also negatively impacted Dr. Ford’s testimony because she couldn’t remember all the little details of the incident. This example portrays that why the court emphasizes on a certain amount of time period regarding certain cases but too much delay can make it hard to find evidence and hence make it hard t make thought decision.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 9

In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation. Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hat
1 comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A
1 comment
Read more

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more