CMS150 - Winter 2001

Trials of Conscience: Litigation

and the Rhetoric of Identity

 Preparing an argument analysis will require you to analyze the primary text we are reading from a rhetorical point of view. This analysis itself has two points of view. We will want to consider the arguments of the accused or accusors in our trials from a forensic point of view - what were the arguments made with the goal of persuading the triers of fact? We will also want to consider our text as a piece of literature, or at least writing. We will also want to consider the relationship between the textual and forensic rhetorics of our text. The following series of questions are designed to help you perfom that analysis. You may discover that you cannot answer all these questions based on a reading of the primary text alone. If that is the case, simply note that the text doesn't supply the answer. However, subsequent secondary readings in the unit will usually provide the answers to these questions. In those instances, go back to the case analysis and write down your answers. You will also find it helpful to write down a citation for the page in the primary or secondary text where you have found the answer.

You can obtain a clean text of the argument analysis form at this link.

• Forensic Rhetoric

   

  • If the text reflects the perspective of the accused,

     

    • How does the accused respond to the factual allegtions of his/her accusors?

       

      • Does the accused accept the factual allegations of the accusor?
      • Does the accused refute, contradict or challenge the factual allegations of the accusor?
      • Does the accused treat the factual allegations of the accusor as irrelevant?

         

    • How does the accused characterize the law under which he/she is being charge?

       

    • How does the accused characterize the relationship between the facts and law in the case?
    • Does the accused suggest that the charges against him/her mask the "true" charges of the case (which themselves could not be the basis of a trial)?

       

    • Does the accused put his/her own character in issue (i.e., argue that based on the sort of person he/she is (a characterization of class, gender, status, reputation), he/she could not have violated the law under which he/she is charged or committed the conduct alleged against him/her?

       

    • How does the accused treat the character or reputation of his/her accusors?

       

    • How does the accused treat the trier of fact (explicitly, implicitly, not at all)?

       

    • How does the accused treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of fact and the accusor?
    • How does the accused treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of fact and the accused?

       

    • Does the accused address an audience beyond the trier of fact (members of the public present that day, subsequent generations?)

       

  • If the text reflects the perspective of the accusor,

     

    • On what factual allegations does the charge depend?

       

    • How does the accusor prove the truth of his/her factual allegations (testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, appeals to common knowledge, arguments based on the character of the accused)?

       

    • Does the accusor make factual allegations that he/she does not attempt to prove?

       

      • If so, what is the purpose of these allegations?

         

    • How does the accusor describe the law under which the accused is tried?

       

    • Does the accusor attempt an explicit argument linking factual allegations to the law under which the accused is tried?

       

    • Does the accusor make arguments based on the character and reputation of the accused?

       

    • Does the accusor make arguments based on his/her own character and reputation?

       

    • Does the accusor attempt to anticipate objections the accused might have to his/her factual allegations or characterization of the law?

       

    • Does the accusor attempt to anticipate arguments that the accused might make based on the character or reputation of the accusor?

       

    • Does the accusor attempt to anticipate arguments that the accused might make based on the accused's character or reputation?

       

    • How does the accusor treat the trier of fact (explicitly, implicitly, not at all)?

       

    • How does the accusor treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of fact and the accusor?
    • How does the accusor treat the relationship (if any) between the triers of fact and the accused?

       

    • Does the accused address an audience beyond the trier of fact (members of the public present that day, subsequent generations?)

       

  • Textual Rhetoric

     

    • What genre of text is the trial recorded in (biography, memoire, transcript, letter, novel, courtroom speech, etc.)?

       

    • How do you think conventions associated with this genre affect the account of the trial offered by the text?

       

    • How do you think these conventions may have affected the way the text presents the forensic rhetoric of the accused or accusor?

       

    • Does the text purport to represent the voice of the accused or accusor directly (as opposed to embedding that voice within another perspective; e.g., that of a biographer, a historian)? If yes,

       

      • Do we know if the text actually does represent that voice directly?

         

      • If the text doesn't embed that voice directly, how do you account for this deliberate misrepresentation?

         

      • Does this misrepresentation affect the way you analyze the forensic rhetoric of the text? How?

         

    • If the text does not, or does not pretend to present the voice of the accusor directly, how does it present the perspective of the author, narrator, creator of the text?

       

      • Does it repress or acknowledge this perspective?
      • How?

         

    • Do you detect tensions between the authorial perspective and that of the accused or accusor in the text? What are they?

       

    • Does the knowledge that the text explicitly offers a representation of the accused or accusor affect the way you analyze the forensic rhetoric of the text? How?