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 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

Chapter 4 - The Nature of Arguments

Chapter 4 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making by Rieke, Sillars and Peterson teaches us that even though each argument is different than another and may appear in a different situation, most arguments can be diagrammed by what is called the Toulmin model. Developed by Stephen Toulmin, this model provides a visual breakdown of an argument’s structure and parts. It begins with the “claim” that is seeking adherence by the presenter. This is what the entire argument model revolves around. Next,  the claim requires what is called “grounds” that basically means the reasoning of why the claim should gain adherence. In between the two the two, we are introduced to a “warrant”. This is information that provides more clarity to why the grounds support the claim. Both the grounds and warrant can be reinforced in the model by what is called “backing”. This is a fancy way of saying hard evidence such as quotes, specific data, etc. Last but not least, we have qualifiers and reservation...
1 comment
Read more