Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Science of Persuasion in Courtroom Questions by Felecia Russell
Felecia Russell

Science of Persuasion in Courtroom Questions by Felecia Russell - 29 views

started by Felecia Russell on 29 Nov 11
  • Felecia Russell
    #1 Felecia Russell on 29 Nov 11
     
    1. In the article, Edward Buckley suggest that there are many techniques to improve persuasion skills. However, when is it all about content and validity and not about strategies and tricks? Is it similar to voting for a candidate because he or she had more "swagg" as in strategy techniques as oppose to actual information about a certain policy?
    2. When we think about lawyers in the courtroom, is it possible to separate persuasion techniques from lawyer knowledge? Is it two separate spheres like morality and justice?
  • Joshua Gray
    #2 Joshua Gray on 30 Nov 11
     
    In concern with the first question I don't believe that there is any one time for entirely one or the other. Lawyers and everyone else use a combination of their content and strategies to strengthen their position. Your validity is only as strong as how you present it which is a part of strategies/tricks however you see it. Same with a persons content or information in an argument, while some information or validity is stronger than other parts the presentation of it can determine how well you do. The user in this case is just as, if not more important, than your content.
    As it says in the article, people tend to be more skeptical and less likely to buy in when they are aware of whats happening at the time. In my opinion, being in a courtroom and aware the prosecution and defense are attempting to sway your opinion would be the best and only way to be aware on what is factual and what is mere persuasion.
  • Jonathan Omokawa
    #3 Jonathan Omokawa on 30 Nov 11
     
    In regards to the second question I think it is two separate spheres. There is a huge difference between law based on morals and law based on justice. Many times some one does something that may be morally remiss and yet it's not illegal. Attorneys use this tactic to influence jury's because jury's are not attorney's trained to look at situations from a legal standpoint. There are also many court cases that don't have a jury and the judge decides everything. In those cases persuasion really has no say in the matter. It becomes all about what is legal and the interpretation the judge takes to the laws before making his/her decision.
  • nsamuelian
    #4 nsamuelian on 30 Nov 11
     
    There is separation between lawyer knowledge and persuasion techniques. There is information that only lawyers learn and can reveal through their schooling, but there is also a part f it that is about persuasion. Lawyers look at things with another perspective and that is job; they bring out information and present it in a way that is appealing to their side. If everyone had this ability, it wouldn't be necessary for any lawyer to attend lawschool, and essentially everyone would be a lawyer. So yes, there is a separation between lawyer knowledge and persuasion techniques, but it they go hand in hand.
  • John Buchanan
    #5 John Buchanan on 30 Nov 11
     
    Yes, it is possible, but it takes a discerning and alert audience to do so. The two ARE black and white, but a skilled public speaker will make them seem gray. He or she will skillfully combine opinion with fact, and utilize this to draw the jury to the conclusion where he wants them to arrive. It is up to the jury to be able to draw facts from the arguments, and base their decision solely off that.
  • steve santos
    #6 steve santos on 30 Nov 11
     
    it is possible to discern them through their intent. Lawyer knowledge and persuasion techniques can be separate from morality and justice. justice can have different interpretations and ways of being enforced in the legal system to different people. the intent principle comes into effect and is blurred by the lines of the system. in an ideal means thought it is a black and white principle, forced to be hindered so the two can be present to be presented in a system that can be defined to be exact through the jury and the other people it must come to be inferred through.
  • Xochitl Cruz
    #7 Xochitl Cruz on 30 Nov 11
     
    Pertaining to the second question i think that you cannot seperate both morality and justice. Ideally that is the goal, but the reality is that as a lawyer you are trying to win your case whether the person is guilty or not. I think justice and morality do conflict with one another, but as a lawyer you have to do your job, to prove your side is correct.
  • Eric Henderson
    #8 Eric Henderson on 30 Nov 11
     
    For questio number 1, I do not think it ever is at all about validity or content. The main concern in persuading your audience is to give a good presentation and use "tricks" to get the audience to believe your point of view, or at least support it. This concept is very similar to voting, mainly because many voters nowadays seem to vote for the candidate who promises the most or who puts on the best advertisements or presentations. It never is about their actual positions on certain political issues anymore, which in my opinion is where it should always be.
  • anonymous
    #9 anonymous on 30 Nov 11
     
    I don't think validity and content are ever the sole motivator for a person's opinion to veer in a specific direction. There must be some amount of persuasion within an idea in order for it to have any clout at all, and most importantly, you must believe in the information you're presenting. Without that, there is no basis for an argument to begin with. And as for morality and justice and how they relate to courtroom technique, it is generally much more important that a lawyer knows the facts behind what he/she is trying to prove, because if for some reason the facts are present, people will pick up on the fact that the lawyer is playing his/her audience. But if they know just enough and make a convincing enough argument that the method succeeds, they will have a much higher chance of winning the case.
  • Valencia Hamilto
    #10 Valencia Hamilto on 01 Dec 11
     
    Just as people said in the previous comments, I don't think its all about validity and content . You have to some amount of persuasion to get your point across. You have to make sure that validity and content balances out with persuasion. Persuasion is what's key to making your point valid. However presentation is the core to your persuasion. A good presentation is what gets your audience interested inyour argument.
  • Matt Nolan
    #11 Matt Nolan on 02 Dec 11
     
    When there is a point that you do not agree with it is going to be harder to get someone to understand where you are coming from and get them to agree with you. When you are presenting evidence it is the way you present yourself not really the content. Candidates win with their wit and charm and that is how you win people over, you might have done the best research and have the most content ,but the person who presents them self the best and wins over the crowd with their gestures and "swag" will always win.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the contemporary issues in public policy group