Legal Discourses Research Paper Example

Law-related discourses are made up of units of speech and verbal interactions that are put together to make sense and achieve a specific legal goal. A statute, a legal verdict, the debate process in testimony questioning, a sequence of media reports about legal procedures, or community discussions about the law can all be regarded as components to discourse (Schuetz, 2007, p.3). Schuetz's discourse includes three: professional, prosaic, and representational. The language that is used in a courtroom has a huge influence on the jury whereas it can make or break a plaintiff or defendant case. The use of the discourses and voir dire in opening and closing statements are made to explain but also tell the story. While discourses are not needed, Schuetz's concepts of professional, prosaic, and representational discourses are used throughout a criminal trial, because the use of voir dire helps, it allows for there to be opening and closing statements, and it helps in trials such as the Zimmerman trial.

What does being professional mean? What makes someone more professional compared to someone else? When most people hear the word professional they assume it is about someone highly qualified and educated in their profession. Professional discourse is used by professionals through language that is presented to express the laws, rules, and procedures in a way that is understood by all. It is one of the first actions that is done in a courtroom. In most cases, jurors will use professional discourse during status and appeal jurisdiction. When professional discourse is being used the language is shifted in a way that everyone can understand. Because phrases and words are so complex in law we need professional discourse to help translate what is being said. 

Representational discourse is the next shown in law. It represents the interpretations of the law through news media, pop culture, and reports. The most popular forms of representational discourse we see are in movies, television shows, books, and news reports. This form of discourse combines facts with fiction merging complex information into entertainment for the public. This often leads many to misunderstand what jurors and attorneys do because of false representation presented to them through entertainment amusement (Schuetz, p6). There is some truth to representations, but they also can construct fabricated information that serves the interests of translators and alter the truth. This also closely relates to the voir dire process as representation is similar as both seek unbiased and fair parties. When voir dire is done efficiently jurors are impartial which provides additional compatibility between the juror and the party. Bias is presented in the Zimmerman trial as Voir dire. His case did not involve any African American jurors since most of them had already formed their own beliefs and done their research before they were questioned about it. Authorities tried their utmost to avoid sounding biased by appointing a jury made up entirely of women with no African Americans. Biases are thinking patterns that limit our minds to some extent and are typically developed by the way we are educated in specific life situations, and the people we associate with.

The last discourse of Scheutz is the prosaic discourse which is “people's everyday vernacular expression and conversations concerning their beliefs, opinions, interpretations, and analyses with regard to legal processes and practices” (Scheutz, p.6). This discourse develops personal meanings, establishes social significance, analyzes the law and legal practice, and gives value to legal procedures. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecutor had described that he stated: “hate-filled words to describe a perfect stranger.” Zimmerman's words alone provide a huge understanding of his intentions on that night of Trayvon's death. His words spoke with such hatred and spite. The words were seen to portray “passion” through the defense jurors' view. The defense is using inoculation to differentiate the state from the jury. Whereas the jury is aware of prosaic tactics and theoretical ones. 

As you can see, the discourses offer a wide range of perspectives for observing and evaluating communication in trials and appellate courts. Each has its advantages in terms of inter-theoretical communication. Each of these discourses was used in the Zimmerman trial. Prosaic and professional is represented in the final arguments when the jurors adjourned to consider he killed Trayvon Martin out of anger, malice, or bitterness. The jury discovered that he didn't, which resulted in the public having a debate about criminal justice cases. Legal language is heavily emphasized in the theoretical perspectives of the professional, representational, and prosaic discourses. Understanding each one helps us better understand how crucial communication is in the legal system.