H. P. Grice, in his theory of conversational implicature, demonstrated the heavy reliance of linguistic communication on contextual cues (Grice, 1975). In “Logic and Conversation” (1975), he states, “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” This Cooperative Principle (CP) asserts that participants in a conversation will tailor their contributions to the conversation to further its purpose. Most conversations do follow the cooperative principle in that the speaker wants to convey her intention and the listener wants to understand the speaker’s intention. Situations in which the cooperative principle is not in place are more unusual or contrived. The legal system in the United States can create situations in which participants of a conversation are not operating under the CP. While the court’s purpose is ostensibly to discover truth and serve justice, the prosecution and defense are clearly at odds in the purpose of their utterances. In this essay, I will explore ways in which lawyers, witnesses, law enforcement officials and suspects exploit the tension between the artificial environment of the courtroom with its strictly defined rules and the expected norms of conversation for their own ends.
The first example in which attorneys and witnesses manipulate expectations is through implicature. Grice defined the concept of an “implicature” as something different from the literal meaning of the sentences uttered that occurs when participants of a conversation are observing the CP. Grice defined four basic rules falling under the Cooperative Principle:
1. Maxim of Quality – Be truthful
2. Maxim of Quan...
... middle of paper ...
...o.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/implicature/.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In A. P. Martinich (Ed.). The Philosophy of Language (pp. 171-181). New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In A. P. Martinich (Ed.). The Philosophy of Language (pp. 182-195). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R.W. (2005). Creating Language Crimes: How Law Enforcement Uses (and Misuses) Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R.W. (1993). Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M. (2005). “Consensual” Searches. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice (pp. 35-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, Peter. (1999). The Language of Perjury, Retrieved from http://www.languageandlaw.org/PERJURY.HTM
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Miller, J. (2010) ‘Stop and search in England: a reformed tactic or business as usual?’ British Journal of Criminology 50(5), 954(21)
Memory plays a large role in our legal system. A person who witnesses a crime has to rely on recalling information, which isn’t always completely accurate. In Johnson (1993) paper she discusses ways memory interferes with the legal systems and what rules and regulations help prevent memory failure to interfere.
Hill, Jane H., P. J. Mistry, and Lyle Campbell. The Life of Language: Papers in Linguistics in Honor of William Bright. Berlin [etc.: Mouton De Gruyter, 1998. Print.
In the Criminal Justice system, the main goal is justice or in other words, a fair consequence to match a criminal action. An obvious, yet unmentioned underlying goal is to prevent injustice. Many times, justice prevails, and this is why our system prevails today. However, when justice fails, it is key to look at the information offered in order to better the system and to repay those that have been failed by it. One area that has shown itself as flawed is the area of interrogations though many other areas will be presented throughout this paper as well. By examining five cases involving questionable interrogation and showing other system flaws, I will enlighten others as to how our justice system handles its flaws, and hopefully I will provide motivation for further improvement.
Lyman, D. Michael; Criminal Investigation, The Art and Science; 3rd edition, 2002 Prentice Hall. Pgs. 188-200.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
Kelling, George L. Thinking About Crime: Is There a Right to Beg? 1993. Web. 10 December 2013.
Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing. In R. A. Leo, & G. C. Thomas, The Miranda Debate: Law, Justice, and Policing (p. 343). Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.
..., Larry J. (2006). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 9th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 0-495-00572-X. Print. 25 Feb 2014.
Shelden, R.G., Brown, W.B., Miller, K.S., & Fritzler, R.B. (2008). Crime and criminal justice in american society. Long Grove, Illinosis: Waveland Press, INC.
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law