The applicability and relevance of judicial rhetoric

Abstract

Disputes and conflicts are inevitable and the appropriate way to deal with them is through a discussion of issues in a cordial manner. Discussions take various forms and rhetoric could be considered as a sophisticated way to handle them. Where such disputes are taken to court, judicial rhetoric is key to present the arguments in question. The lawyer’s job is to represent his client to advance the latter’s interests to win the case and judicial rhetoric involves in persuading the audience to accept his point of view through the use of rhetorical techniques; attempting to control the audience’s perceptions of the facts of the case; strengthening the credibility of the client; and diminishing the opposing party’s claims and his credibility. Still, being a mere good speaker is not enough but the lawyer must also have comprehensive knowledge of how the system of justice operates together with a sufficient knowledge of the provisions of his domestic laws, customary laws and international laws. Furthermore, some critics think that the purpose of rhetoric is to deceive and manipulate. However, judicial rhetoric is committed to give reasons which can determine the validity and legitimacy of the reasoning. In consideration of the judgements and of the opinions that were analyzed in this research, the author concludes that rhetoric is relevant in court. This hypothesis is based on the premises that the courts based their considerations on the lawyer’s arguments and that even the judges can fall to the lawyer’s attempts to influence the former’s train of thought. Therefore, the use of judicial rhetoric is both relevant and effective and it serves the purpose of persuading others to accept the perspective of the speaker.