Forensic Rhetoric

Introduction
Have you ever watched an episode of “Law and Order” on television? If so, you’ve seen forensic rhetoric in action. FORENSIC RHETORIC deals with the accusation (kategoria) or defense (apologia) of someone, usually in seen in court settings in contemporary times. Aristotle believed that someone using forensic rhetoric must be keenly aware of justice versus injustice, and the use of words to achieve an understanding of both sides of the argument. A detective is questioning a suspect in the holding room, and he says, “When you saw your boyfriend with another woman, you were mad and you wanted revenge. Didn’t you?” The detective is presenting facts in the past tense and coming to the accusatory end of his argument. He hopes the end result will be the suspect confessing to the crime. This is a simplified example of how forensic rhetoric works.
Definition
Forensic rhetoric, as opposed to deliberate rhetoric, is based on past actions to bring truth to the forefront of the audience’s mind. The purpose of forensic rhetoric is twofold: accusation on one hand and defense on the other. Some scholars refer to this type of rhetoric as “judicial rhetoric” because of the way speakers engage both sides of a story to make their points. In a courtroom setting, forensic rhetoric is the speaking that allows the audience and the speaker to concentrate on the argument at hand by engaging in various methods of rhetoric known as appeals. The appeals can take three different directions to persuade the audience (in a courtroom setting, the audience would be the jury mainly, and the others in the courtroom as well.) The three types of rhetoric appeals are appeals based on ethos, the use of ethical or character appeal; pathos, the appeal by using emotion; or logos, the appeal of logic and reasoning.
Examples of Appeal
To examine how each of these types of appeals would enhance the rhetoric of the speaker, let us look at some real-life examples of how each might work. Let us first talk about ethos. Aristotle observed in Rhetoric that the speaker’s character through his speech “may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses.” (Biesecker-Mast, 1994). Suppose an attorney representing a person on trial for murder was appealing for his defense. The attorney is well-known for representing other clients who have since had their names cleared and gone on to write books and become prominent members of the community. The attorney has a reputation for finding the truth even before he begins his latest defense. The jury will listen to his words and judge him according somewhat to his character and display of fine work from his past. He may even refer to past cases in which he was able to succeed in getting the defendant released. This is an example of how ethos works. Ethos may also come into play if the defendant himself is an esteemed member of society and takes the stand. He may defend himself by explaining that he works with the local chapter of the Boy Scouts and has worked in counseling for troubled teenagers during the course of his career. By establishing a positive character for himself, the audience is going to hear what he says in a different and more positive light.
Pathos is best seen in an example of a witness who shows emotion on the witness stand. The attorney may be questioning the witness, attempting to win sympathy from the jury for his client. He asks the witness questions to test her emotional strength and when she breaks down in tears as she recounts her story, the audience will identify with her emotion, and her testimony will hold more of a meaning for them. It’s easier to identify pathos by listening for descriptive words that elicit emotional responses from the audience. For example, the other attorney’s closing remarks may say something about the defendant’s “cold demeanor at the horrifically bloody and brutal crime scene.” The jury is persuaded to view the defendant as being a cold and calculating murderer and in turn, view the victim and their family with compassion and empathy.
The appeal using logos, or logic, is more complex. Aristotle wrote in his work Rhetoric that one of the aspects of forensic rhetoric is that for one side, the speaker must “..prove that they are trustworthy and authoritative… but if they [the audience] support our opponents, we must do the opposite.” (Rydberg-Cox, 2003). Logos is a pragmatic approach which often uses written laws, rules or documents to prove something. Logos also persuades the audience to one side of the argument by offering practical reasons for actions. There must be a logical chain of reasoning which connects and supports all arguments to be effective. Oftentimes logos is prevalent in academic or judicial arguments because cases from the past are often drawn upon in making a decision. One example of logos in our courtroom setting would be a closing argument, after appeal to emotion is completed. “Ladies and gentleman,” the attorney might say, “ we have so far heard the testimony of witness A and witness B. Witness A has lied to police on two occasions. Witness B is a proven drug abuser. The only other witness to the crime is dead.” These are factual statements, drawing to a conclusion that both witnesses are not reliable based on true events and emphasizing that the dead cannot defend themselves. (This is one example of enthymeme, or an unspoken truth. The attorney did not specifically state that dead men don’t talk, but it is implied and understood by the audience anyway.)
History of Forensic Rhetoric
Forensic rhetoric was first seen and discussed in Greece (Athens) between 350-500 A.D. This is due to the fact that society began to rely more and more on written materials used as evidence in courts, and also on documenting new laws, revising old laws, and the prolific writing of books and journals (Rydberg-Cox, 2003). Although philosophists have always known that persuasion was the main goal of rhetoric in its infancy, forensic rhetoric allowed for the exploration of various methods of persuasion as described in the last section. There are two early works which demonstrate much of the effectiveness of forensic rhetoric and its various strategies: Gorgias’s “Palamedes” and Plato’s “Apology.”
In Gorgias’s “Palamedes,” his character uses forensic strategies to establish his reputation with the audience, defend himself and then cast doubt on his accuser, Odysseus. In this work, Palamedes not only makes himself credible by telling the audience what a good person he is and how he is innocent, but he then turns on Odysseus and attacks his credibility. He appeals to the jury’s character by telling them if they convict him, they will have been deceived and wrong. In Plato’s “Apology,” the character of Socrates discredits his accusers by going after their reputation and he even asks the jury to question their decision because they may not be fit to render such a decision. This must have struck a chord with the deity- worshipping jury. Both works also use similar rhetorical means throughout.
Each situation pits an accused man against his accusers. Each accuser finds a claim to refute (the accusation.) Each accused man professes he is going to provide the jury with the truth, which the opposing side lacks. Both of the accused men tell the jury they are going to provide a logical chain of evidence that proves they are innocent. Each accused man draws upon his character in the past to show the jury that such an ethical man could not have committed a crime. And each of the men advise the jury that by finding him guilty, that they are in fact in violation of the truth which they seek.Forensic rhetoric has been used throughout history in many debates, discussions, arguments, courtroom dramas, and speeches.
I chose to focus primarily on courtroom rhetoric because it easily and clearly illustrates the aspects of this type of speaking. Other instances of its use that people in the last few years may be familiar with are its use in the trying of various famous people for crimes. Bill Clinton debated the meaning of the word “is” when he was asked about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Although he was not on trial at the time, he was answering back to reporters and to the American public during a press conference. Clinton’s intent was to confuse his audience by making them question the validity of their own accusations. Another example would be the courtroom scenes we witnessed with the trial of O.J. Simpson being tried for murdering his wife and her friend. In this case, emotional and dramatic speeches as well as character attacking and overly simplistic emphases swayed the jury this way and that. There was emphasis by speech about the glove at the scene which was played over and over, each time with more fervor, each time the attorneys attempting to convict Simpson with the sheer coincidence of a bloody glove at the scene. Simpson’s attorneys tried to relax and comfort the jury and also identify with the members of the jury who most closely fit Simpson’s demographic of a middle aged, black man. Finally, his repeated use of the catchy phrase, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!” rang throughout the audience’s ears. This was a simplified method of getting the audience to repeat a phrase which made Simpson appear not guilty.

References
Biesecker-Mast, G.J. (1994). Forensic Rhetoric and the Constitution of the Subject: Innocence, Truth, and Wisdom in Gorgias’s “Palamedes” and Plato’s “Apology.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 24, 3/4, pp148-166.
Johnstone, H.W., Jr.(1999). Wedge and Bridge: a Note on Rhetoric as Distinction and as Identification. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 29, 2, pp75-78.
Mangum, G.C. & Mangum, A.B. (1983). Forensic Rhetoric and Invention: Composition Students as Attorneys. College Composition and Communication, 34,1, pp43-56.
Rydberg-Cox, J.A. (2003). Oral and Written Sources in Athenian Forensic Rhetoric. Mnemosyne Journal, 56, 6.