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

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a 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

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more