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

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