Komter1994
| Komter1994 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Komter1994 |
| Author(s) | Martha L. Komter |
| Title | Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Courtroom Interaction, Accusation, Defense, Dutch, Blame |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1994 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 5 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 165–187 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926594005002002 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper examines the management of accusations and defences, and the interplay between legal requirements and everyday conversational mechanisms in Dutch courtroom interaction. Two kinds of accusations are distinguished: those brought forward by the public prosecutor in the official charges, and those that are implied in the questions of the judges. The official charges foreclose or anticipate a number of possible defences, although defendants do not have the opportunity to respond immediately. The blame implied in the judges' questions generate various kinds of defences, depending on whether the questions are oriented to facts or to morals.
The judges' factual questions generate partial admissions or qualified versions, by which defendants tone down or disguise the more harmful elements of the alleged offence. Questions asking for a moral evaluation are followed by moral affirmation of the defendants, after which they try to mitigate their moral responsibility by way of excuses and justifications. The excuses and justifications brought forward by the defendants can be seen as everyday versions of legal grounds for immunity.
Notes
