Abstract
This paper is concerned with argumentation in legal proceedings, namely in criminal cases. My interest is to explore how in the legal realm different argumentation fields interact, the juridical field being just one of them. The paper lays out an approach of studying argumentation in the legal realm in the framework of an ethnographic methodology by identifying the “topical rules” the participants in criminal trials adhere to. Suggesting the notion of field-dependence as a good starting point for the analysis of legal argumentation, I will give several examples of different fields of argumentation interacting in criminal proceedings. The examination of what counts as a good reason and how arguments are employed, negotiated, and evaluated within a criminal proceeding might shed light on the practice of constructing facts and arriving at decisions in court. It can furthermore point at the constitution of legal rationality and how it is produced in criminal trials. I argue that rationality in criminal proceedings is interactively accomplished by negotiating different standards of validity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexy R. (1983). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp
Asmuth B. (1992). Angemessenheit In: Ueding G. (ed). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 579–604
Atkinson J.M., Drew P. (1979). Order in Court: Verbal Interaction in Juridical Settings. Macmillian Press, London
Bitzer L. (1968). ‘The Rhetorical Situation’. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1:1–14
Bogen D., Lynch M. (1996). The Spectacle of History. Duke University Press, Durham and London
Bogoch B. (1994). Power, Distance and Solidarity: Models of Professional-Client Interaction in an Israeli Legal Aid Setting. Discourse & Society 5(1):65–88
Bourdieu P. (1987). The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. The Hastings Law Journal 38:814–853
Bourdieu P. (1998). Praktische Vernunft Zur. Theorie des Handelns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
Christensen R., Kudlich H. (2001). Theorie richterlichen Begründens. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Deppermann, A.: 2003, ‘Desiderata einer gesprächsanalytischen Argumentationsforschung’, in A. Deppermann and M. Hartung (eds.), Argumentieren in Gesprächen, pp. 10–26, Tübingen
Feteris E. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Goodnight G.T. (1982). The Personal, Technical and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:214–227
Habermas J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
Hannken-Illjes, K.: 2004, Gute Gründe geben, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Hohmann H. (1996). Juristische Rhetorik In: Ueding G. (ed). Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Tübingen, Niemeyer, pp. 779–832
Komter M. (1995). The Distribution of Knowledge in Courtroom Interaction In: ten Have P., Psathas G. (eds). Situated Order. UP of America, Washington, DC, pp. 107–128
Komter M. (1998). Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in the Netherlands. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
Kopperschmidt J. (1989). Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse. frommann-holzboog, Stuttgart
Knoblauch H. (2000). Topik und Soziologie Von der sozialen zur kommunikativen Topik In: Schirren T., Ueding G. (eds). Topik und Rhetorik. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 651–668
Luhmann, N.: 1995, Das Recht der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M
Lynch M.E. (1982). Closure and Disclosure in Pre-Trial Argument. Human Studies 5:285–318
Maynard D.W. (1984). Inside Plea Bargaining Plenum Press, New York
Sarat A., Felstiner W.L.F. (1986). Land and Strategy in the Divorce Lawyer’s Office. Law & Society Review 20(1):93–134
Sarat A., Felstiner W.L.F. (1988). Land and Social Relations: Vocabularies of Motive in Lawyer/Client Interaction. Law & Society Review 22(4):737–769
Schuetz J. (1981). The Genesis of Argumentative Forms and Fields In: Ziegelmuller G.R.J. (ed). Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. SCA, Annandale, pp. 279–294
Seibert T.-M. (2004). Gerichtsrede Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Slob W.H. (2002). How to Distinguish Good and Bad Arguments: Dialogico-rhetorical Normativity. Argumentation 16:179–196
Sobota, K.: 1996, ‘Argumente und stilistische Überzeugungsmittel in Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts’, in W. Gast (ed.), Juristische Rhetorik, (Rhetorik – Ein internationales Jahrbuch, Band 15 hg. von J. Dyck, W. Jens and G. Ueding), pp. 115–136, Niemeyer, TÜbingen
Strafprozessordnung: 2003, 35th Edition
Terdiman R. (1987). Translator’s Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu, The Force of Law. The Hastings Law Journal 38:805–813
Toulmin S. (1958). The Uses of Argument Cambridge UP, Cambridge
Travers, M.: 1997, The Reality of Law, Darmouth Publishing
Wenzel J.W. (1982). On Fields of Argument as Propositional Systems. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:204–213
Wenzel, J.: 1989, ‘Relevance – and Other Norms of Argument. A Rhetorical Exploration’, in R. Maier (ed.), Norms in Argumentation, pp. 85–95, Dordrecht
Willard, C. A.: 1983, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press, University of Alabama
Willard C.A. (1992). Field Theory: a Cartesian Meditation In: Benoit W.L., Hample D., Benoit P.J. (eds). Readings in Argumentation. Foris Publications, Berlin/New York, pp. 437–467 (original version published in 1981)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hannken-Illjes, K. In the Field – The Development of Reasons in Criminal Proceedings. Argumentation 20, 309–325 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9015-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9015-x