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

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.