Recently, my friend introduced me to Boston Legal, a show that ran on ABC from 2004 to 2008. I immediately was hooked because the show masterfully mixed two of my favorite things: law and classic television romances. While quickly breezing through the first few season I realized that rhetoric plays a great role in a trial. In these fictional portrayals, it became clear that the attorney Alan Shore predominately uses pathos during his closing argument to forge an emotional response from the judge and jury and to elicit his desired outcome.
Alan’s techniques are well established among the other individuals in the show. In one episode where he did not seem to have a case, he was advised to simply give a long closing argument, as was his custom, to pull on the emotions of the jury. By doing so, the individual told him that he would easily win. However, because his emotional appeals are well established, he has been warned on numerous occasions by judges that he just needs to just stick with the facts and focus on the trial at hand.
Of course, Alan has established his credibility and is often requested for trials because of his abilities. He also reviews a great deal of information brought up within the trial. In his closings, he also effectively leave the judge and jury, his attended audience, with a question to ponder. Of course, this reflects the issue of guilt and innocence. But he breaks their expectations by taking what generally seems to be a straightforward issue and making jury think twice. In a case in which a homeless man was arrested for cremating a friend and, while starving, went to eat the friend, Alan forces the jury to consider the defendant's cannibalistic actions as acceptable. In a case that may not have an explicit emotional appeal, Alan makes one by reminding the jury of the deceased wishes to be burned by his friend and the reminder that the deceased would have wanted the defendant to do all that was possible to survive.The firm went on to win the case not because the jury necessarily accepts the defendant’s actions, but rather because Alan Shore uses rhetorical devices to appeal to logic and emotion.
Boston Legal: Fine Young Cannibal (Episode 304).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1DUTrfF83I
(Alan Shore's closing argument begins at 37 seconds)
The way Alan persuades the judge is very interesting. Oftentimes I think emotions have a much stronger influence on people rather than statistics and such. Many people look for statistics but I know when I feel an emotion it is much more convincing than a number
ReplyDeleteHis argument was so convincing and the way he kept referring to his opponent as "Mr. District-Attorney My-Name-Appears-Second-On-The-Ballot-This-November Ginsburg" made the court audience and jury realize that the DA was using the publicity from the case to get re-elected. Alan shows the DA's agenda was skewed to advancing his career instead of helping those like the homeless man he was trying.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to agree with Jaclyn on this one-- emotion truly is much more convincing than a number. It seems like most lawyers use pathos to persuade jurors, and this episode of Boston Legal is an entertaining representation of that. Interesting post!
ReplyDelete