Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:51:22.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bound to One's Own Words? Early Defenses and Their Binding Effects in Different Criminal Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Thomas Scheffer ,
Kati Hannken-Illjes  and
Alex Kozin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the binding forces that emerge in criminal cases. Using ethnographic data, we explore how defendants are bound to their initial defenses. In addition, we ask whether the binding effect works similarly or differently in three distinct procedures. Our research is rooted in the analytical concepts of “procedural history” and “discourse formation” as presented by Niklas Luhmann and Michel Foucault. Both theories describe past statements as “virulent” in present stages: participants have to take their own histories into account when engaging in current dealings; current statements must confront past statements, generating inconsistency and contradiction. Empirically, the three authors explore variations of binding in the light of eight microhistorical case narratives collected during fieldwork in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These microhistories trace the binding effects of early defenses through pretrial and trial. Our observations lead us to conclude that the binding mechanism appears less determinative in practice than in the claims of theory. Alongside the several effects of binding, we identify a variety of protections, interruptions, and even unbinding effects.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Winter 2007 , pp. 5 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashworth, Andrew. 1998. The Criminal Process. An Evaluative Study. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Bucke, Tom, and Brown, David. 1997. In Police Custody: Police Powers and Suspects’ Rights under the Revised PACE Codes of Practice. Home Office Research Study 174.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and William, M. O'Barr. 1998. Just Words. Law, Language and Power. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Cunningham, Clark D. 1991. The Lawyer as Translator, Representation as Text. Cornell Law Review 77:1298–1387.Google Scholar
Devlin, Patrick. 1985. Easing the Passing—The Trial of Dr John Bodkin Adams. London: The Bodley Head. Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 1897. Le Suicide: etude de sociologie. Paris: Alcan. Google Scholar
Elias, Norbert. 1965. The Established and the Outsiders: A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. London: Tavistock. Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday. Google Scholar
Jörg, Nico, Stewart, Field, and Brants, Chrisje. 1995. Are Inquisitorial and Adverserial Systems Converging? In Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, ed. Harding, Christopher, 41–56. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1989. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael, and Bogen, David. 1996. The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1999. Archives in Formation: Privileged Spaces, Popular Archives and Paper Trials. History of the Human Sciences 122:65–87.Google Scholar
Maneschi, Andrea. 2004. Noneconomic Complementarity in the History of Economic Thought. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 63 (4):911–20.Google Scholar
McBarnet, Doreen. 1981. Conviction—Law, the State and the Construction of Justice. Wolfson College, Oxford: SSRC Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. Google Scholar
McIntyre, Lisa J. 1987. The Public Defender: The Practice of Law in the Shadows of Repute. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Messmer, Heinz. 2003. Der Soziale Konflikt. Kommunikative Emergenz und systemische Reproduktion. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
Pizzi, William T. 1999. Trials Without Truth: Why Our System of Criminal Trials Has Become an Expensive Failure and What We Need to Do to Rebuild It. New York, London: New York University Press. Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2002. Zur Kritik der Urteilskraft—Wie in Asylanhörungen Unentscheidbares in Entscheidungen übersetzt wird. In Migration und Verwaltung, ed. Oltmer, Jochen, 109–44. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2003a. Die Karriere rechtswirksamer Argumente. Ansatzpunkte einer historiographischen Diskursanalyse der Gerichtsverhandlung. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 24 (2):151–81.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2003b. The Duality of Mobilisation. Following the Rise and Fall of an Alibi-Story on Its Way to Court. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 33:313–46.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2004. Materialities of Legal Proceedings. International Journal for Semiotics of Law 17:356–89.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2005. Courses of Mobilisation: Writing Systematic Micro-Histories on Legal Discourse. In Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research, ed. Travers, M. and Banakar, R., 75–89. Oxford, Portland, OR: Hart Publishing. Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. Forthcoming. On Procedural Discoursivation—or How Local Utterances are Turned into Binding Facts. Journal for Language and Communication.Google Scholar
Seibert, Thomas-Michael. 2004. Gerichtsrede. Wirklichkeit und Möglichkeit im forensischen Diskurs. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Google Scholar
Sudnow, David. 1964. Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office. Social Problems 12:255–76.Google Scholar
Tapper, Colin. 1999. Cross and Tapper on Evidence. London, Edinburgh, Dublin: Butterworths. Google Scholar
Wolff, Stephan, and Müller, Hermann. 1997. Kompetente Skepsis. Eine konversationsanalytische Untersuchung zur Glaubwürdigkeit in Strafverfahren. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Google Scholar