Discursive Classification and Evaluation in Courtroom Discourse

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which discursive classification constitutes the prime mechanism that aids in the creation of opposing representations of the individual on trial. Attending to the opening speech of a high-profile trial, the analysis identifies various social categories that are legally speaking irrelevant to the determination of guilt, and argues that, contrary to popular belief, what is being contested is not evidence or legal principles, but it is different social types and their associated normative expectations that are orchestrated to frame logical inconsistencies and assign blameworthiness to the defendant in the first place.