Skip to main content

Chapter 12 - Narrative in Legal Argumentation

For this weeks blog post, I will be focusing on Chapter 12: Argumentation in Law and the concept of using narrative in legal argumentation, specifically regarding federal civil law. There are many aspects about narrative in law that are distinctive and very different from what most people would consider a narrative to be. Narrative in law is a matter of presenting evidence in a specific manner that would persuade lawmakers, jurors, and other decision makers to grant adherence to the given claim.

The use of narratives in this specific sphere of argumentation is very unique compared to other spheres. There are many outside factors that contribute to the specific construction of narratives in law such as time, validity, technicality, consistency, and more. Although many of those aspects apply to general argumentation, they are much more specified in legal cases because of the specific rules in a court of law. Narratives are used when a lawyer is representing their client and have to construct specific information that pertains to their argumentative case. This consists of facts, evidence, people involved, motives, disputed actions, outcomes of the actions, and more. These various aspects must be framed as assertions that relate to specific themes, story categories, causal connection, and connections between the story and its legality to successfully employ the use of narrative.

An interesting current event that relates to the use of narrative in argumentative law practices is Kim Kardashian West’s use of narrative in her efforts to create new prison reforms. Kardashian West used her celebrity status and powerful platform to shed led on this issue in the United States. She specifically focused on the case of Alice Johnson who was sentenced to prison for life because of a non-violent drug offence. Ms. Johnson was sentenced in 1996 and served over 20 years in prison until Kardashian West began to lobby for her release. She specifically used authority in her narrative to gain traction by reaching out to Ivanka Trump, then being directed to Jared Kushner and President Donald Trump. Kushner has a very strong say as the white house senior advisor who was specifically handling new prison reforms at the White House. Kardashians narrative was technical and valid as she had a private meeting with the President that used different burdens of proof and persuasive tactics to support her claim that Alice Johnson was wrongfully sentenced to prison for life. Her case was successful as President Trump granted a clemency plea for Alice Johnson who was soon freed from prison. Kardashian West was very logical in representing Alice Johnson as she presented different facts to develop her narrative and successfully free Alice Johnson.

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