Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 28, 2022

Moral legitimation in capital trials: the case of the prosecution’s closing summation

  • Krisda Chaemsaithong

    Krisda Chaemsaithong is Professor of English Linguistics at Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, where he teaches courses and supervises research on language and law. Presently, his projects examine how language can be manipulated to create a death-inclined jury in capital trials.

    EMAIL logo
From the journal Text & Talk

Abstract

Underpinned by the assumption that the legitimacy of a social practice is obtained discursively, this study proposes a linguistically-grounded model for examining moral legitimation in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Drawing upon state lawyers’ closing speech in six capital trials (Indiana, USA), the study identifies key strategies the State uses to justify death and explores their ideological basis. The quantitative findings indicate that moral legitimation is integral to this genre, and, qualitatively speaking, the State relies to a great extent on strategies such as naming labels, assignment of agency, and evaluation, respectively. This is followed by emotion-based reasoning and analogy. It is argued that the reliance on moral legitimation treats death as a natural corollary of such moral characterizations and precludes the discussion of the life-sentence option.


Corresponding author: Krisda Chaemsaithong, Department of English Language & Literature, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni Road, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul, South Korea, 04763, E-mail:

About the author

Krisda Chaemsaithong

Krisda Chaemsaithong is Professor of English Linguistics at Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea, where he teaches courses and supervises research on language and law. Presently, his projects examine how language can be manipulated to create a death-inclined jury in capital trials.

Appendix A

Core information of each case under study.

Case Name of case Main charges Verdict Length
1 State of Indiana versus Kevin Isom (2013) Triple homicide (wife and her two children) Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 19,253 words
2 State of Indiana versus Daniel Wilkes (2007) Triple homicide (wife and her two children) Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 5,552 words
3 State of Indiana versus Frederic Baer (2005) Rape and murder of a mother and her daughter (no relationship to him) Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 30,040 words
4 State of Indiana versus Roy Ward (2000) Rape and murder of two children (not related to him) Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 47,756 words
5 State of Indiana versus Wayne Kubsch (2000) Murder of wife and her former boyfriend and their son Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 8,575 words
6 State of Indiana versus Michael Overstreet (2000) Rape and murder of his girlfriend Death (as of 2021 awaiting execution) 28,879 words

Appendix B

Frequencies of each strategy in each case (per 10,000 words).

Strategy Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Means
Labeling 234.03 251.34 210.05 250.50 232.09 253.05 238.51
Agency assignment 93.36 122.64 130.52 125.78 119.25 102.41 115.66
Evaluative Lexis 32.34 91.63 73.77 66.21 47.13 70.58 63.61
Emotion-based reasoning 10.16 19.32 24.44 25.61 27.73 31.52 23.13
Analogy 14.77 20.31 13.12 9.17 15.77 12.19

References

Abramson, Jeffrey. 2004. Death-is-different jurisprudence and the role of capital jury. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2. 117–164.Search in Google Scholar

Bedau, Hugo. 1987. Death is different: Studies in the morality, law, and politics of capital punishment. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Bergman, Paul. 1989. Trial advocacy in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62. 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042862.Search in Google Scholar

Burt, Michael. 2008. The importance of storytelling at all stages of a capital case. UMKC Law Review 77. 877–910.Search in Google Scholar

Cap, Piotr. 2017. The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1Search in Google Scholar

Chilton, Paul. 2014. Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845703Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Kate. 1992. The linguistics of blame: Representations of women in The Sun’s Reporting of Crimes of Sexual Violence. In Michael Toolan (ed.), Language, text, and context: Essays in stylistics, 208–224. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Duranti, Alessandro. 2004. Agency in language. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 451–473. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996522.ch20Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Jan. 2009. Free the victim: A critique of the Western conception of victimhood. International Review of Victimology 16. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800901600101.Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun. 1998. Ideology: An interdisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Ellsworth, Phoebe & Samuel Gross. 1994. Hardening of attitudes: Americans’ view on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues 50. 19–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02409.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gross, Samuel. 1993. The romance of revenge: Capital punishment in America. Studies in Law, Politics & Society 13. 71–104.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Housley, William & Richard Fitzgerald. 2009. Membership categorization, culture and norms in action. Discourse & Society 20. 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926509102405.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson. 2001. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jayyusi, Lena. 1984. Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Licoppe, Christian. 2015. Categorization work in the courtroom: The ‘foundational’ character of membership categorization analysis. In Richard Fitzgerald & William Housley (eds.), Advances in membership categorization analysis, 71–98. London: Sage.10.4135/9781473917873.n4Search in Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1. 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986.Search in Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1995. Representing social action. Discourse & Society 6. 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006001005.Search in Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2018. Legitimation and multimodality. In Ruth Wodak & Bernhard Forchtner (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics, 218–232. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315183718-17Search in Google Scholar

Van Leeuwen, Theo & Ruth Wodak. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1. 83–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2014. Manipulating emotions: Value-based reasoning and emotive language. Argumentation and Advocacy 51. 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2014.11821842.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139565776Search in Google Scholar

Mirhosseini, Seyyed-Abdolhamid. 2017. Discursive double-legitimation of (avoiding) another war in Obama’s 2013 address on Syria. Journal of Language and Politics 16. 706–730. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16016.mir.Search in Google Scholar

Nevala, Minna. 2019. Two miserable creatures or those atrocious criminals?: Evaluative reference in the Mannings murder reporting. In Ursula Lutzky & Minna Nevala (eds.), Reference and identity in public discourses, 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.306.01nevSearch in Google Scholar

Peled-Elhanan, Nurit. 2010. Legitimation of massacres in Israeli school history books. Discourse and Society 21. 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510366195.Search in Google Scholar

Qvarfordt, Anna, David Hoff, Asa Backstrom & Nader Ahmadi. 2019. From fighting the bad to protecting the good: Legitimation strategies in WADA’s athlete guides. Performance Enhancement & Health 7. 100–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100147.Search in Google Scholar

Reyes, Antonio. 2011. Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society 22. 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927.Search in Google Scholar

Rojo, Luisa & Teun van Dijk. 1997. There was a problem, and it was solved!”: Legitimating the expulsion of “illegal” migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society 8. 523–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Sarat, Austin. 2002. When the state kills: Capital punishment and the American condition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691188669Search in Google Scholar

Sarat, Austin & Thomas Kearns (eds.). 1993 Law’s violence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.13488Search in Google Scholar

Shapland, Joanna & Matthew Hall. 2007. What do we know about the effects of crime on victims? International Review of Victimology 14. 175–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800701400202.Search in Google Scholar

Steiker, Carol & Jordan Steiker. 2010. Costs and capital punishment: A new consideration transforms and old debate, vol. 1, 117–164. University of Chicago Legal Forum.Search in Google Scholar

Tabbert, Ulrike. 2015. Crime and corpus: The linguistic representation of crime in the press. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.20Search in Google Scholar

Tiainen, Minna. 2017. (De)legitimating electronic surveillance: A critical discourse analysis of the Finnish news coverage of the Edward Snowden revelations. Critical Discourse Studies 14. 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1320296.Search in Google Scholar

Trew, Tony. 1979. What the papers say: Linguistic variation and ideological differences. In Roger Fowler, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress & Tony Trew (eds.), Language and control, 117–156. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429436215-7Search in Google Scholar

Vaara, Eero, Janne Tienari & Juha Laurila. 2006. Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies 27. 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606061071.Search in Google Scholar

Vartkessian, Elizabeth, Jon Sorensen & Christopher Kelly. 2014. Tinkering with the machinery of death: An analysis of jury decision-making in Texas death penalty trials during two statutory eras. Justice Quarterly 24. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.958188.Search in Google Scholar

White, Peter R. R. 2006. Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse: A new framework for analysis. In Inger Lassen, Jeanne Strunck & Torben Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies, 37–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.18.05whiSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-07-06
Accepted: 2022-02-14
Published Online: 2022-02-28
Published in Print: 2022-11-25

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2020-0129/pdf
Scroll to top button