Accusation Theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Transmathematica
Straight accusations are considered a normal case for accusations with special accusation types referring to other forms of accusations. Three special accusation types wil be considered: anonymous accusations, non-evidential accusations, and self-accusations. Anonymous accusations (AA's) are accusations with an anonymous accuser. We describe the remarkable effects which anonymous accusations may have, and we propose various key properties of anonymous accusations: (i) the viral character of AA's, (ii) the potentially explosive effect of AA's, and (iii) the forensic challenge creation characteristic of AA's. These characteristics suggest, and in may contexts impose, rather restrictive rules of engagement for dealing with AA's. Secondly we describe non-evidential accusations (NEA's). Such accusations do not allow any meaningful form of validation of the body of the accusation. Nevertheless NEA's play a significant role nowadays. Finally we provide some rem...
Accusation, Mitigation and Resisting Guilt in Talk
The Open Communication Journal, 2008
The notion of 'guilt' has been subject of examination through the methods of Membership Categorisation Analysis as a part of the work of formal institutions such as courts, police, and schools where the consequences of decisions made may have direct effects on the person being judged. However whilst this research has provided access to the process of 'negotiating' guilt in these highly ritualized and formal contexts the ascription, negotiation and resistance of guilt is not restricted to these institutions. Rather deciding someone's 'guilt' or resisting such a categorisation can be seen as part of the routine everyday work of social life. In this paper we use the method of Membership Categorisation Analysis to examine two instances where "guilt" is a matter of local negotiation between parties and where the consequences are purely a matter for the participants at hand: a narrative therapy counseling session and a conversation between friends. In the first site the negotiation is around a participant 'feeling guilty' whilst in the second, guilt is attributed to absent third party. Through our analysis we highlight that the interactional work of ascribing and resisting 'guilt' is both a routine feature of social interaction and that this routine feature is organised through members' methodical use of descriptions and accounts embedded in a common sense relationship between individual and categorial actions.
They Were Accused: Rituals of Accusation as Generative Practices
2018
An eclectic intervention into law, accusation, and thingness. This paper argues that the logics of law and other social constructions generate a relational thingness that requires us to think in the passive voice, in order to do away with the subject and erase the fundamental problematic of accusation.
Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing
Argumentation, 1998
This paper joins the voices warning against hasty transference of legal concepts of presumption to other kinds of argumentation, especially to deliberation about future acts and policies. Comparison of the pragmatics which respectively constitute the illocutionary acts of ACCUSING and PROPOSING reveals striking differences in the ways presumptions prompt accusers and proposers to undertake probative responsibilities and, also, points to corresponding differences in their probative duties. This comparison highlights significant contrasts between the way presumptions figure in legal reasoning as opposed to deliberation; the comparison also raises theoretically important questions about the norms governing persuasive argumentation. This paper is based on a broadly Gricean account of speech acts.
Extreme accusations and the risk of overaccusing
Proceeding on the work in [6] we proceed with an investigation of the fine structure of the class of straight accusations with focus on what we will call extreme accusations. Besides "extreme accusation" we find the need for additional terminology such as underaccusing and overaccusing. Accusing comes with risks, and we investigate such risks in some detail. Extreme accusation may arise from the intent to avoid a risk of underaccusation, but it comes with a risk of overaccusation the gravity of which which may be underestimated with unfortunate consequences.
From social event to penal fact: the process of construction of the accusation
The Journal of Human Justice, 1994
L ' auteure prdsente les rdsultats d'une dtude consistant ~ suivre le cheminement d' une cohorte de 1792 justiciables r travers tout le processus pdnal, ~ partir du moment of a la police apprdhende un suspect jusqu'a l'issue de ia cause au tribunal. L'auteure allkgue que dans l'dtude du processus pdnal, l" accusation constitue une dimension rarement examinde, prise en quelque sorte pour acquis. Ainsi, on aurait tendance croire que la mise en accusation par la police marque la naissance d' une affaire pdnale. Ce faisant, on oublie que l" accusation retenue par le policier implique ndcessairement un certain nombre de ddcisions de sa part. Entre autres, au moment d'associer ~ un dvdnement, ~ l" origine fait social, le libelld juridique qui en fera ddsormais un fait pdnal, le policier choisit parmi tout un ensemble d'indices ceux qu'il juge pertinents aux fins de sa traduction en termes juridiques. La ddcision du policier d' associer ~ un dvdnement tel libelld juridique plut6t que tel autre est d' autant plus cruciale qu'elle ne sera pas, le plus souvent, revisde. Toute lecture ultdrieure de l'dvdnement sera par consdquent teintde du rdsultat de cette premiere opdration. L'auteure montre comment ce processus de construction d'une accusation n" est pas neutre. II est ~ la fois ddtermind (par toute une sdrie de facteurs) et ddterminant (du cheminement de la cause-et partant du suspect-dans le syst~me pdnal).
Effects of Accusations on the Accuser: The Moderating Role of Accuser Culpability
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2003
Recent research has shown that people can enhance their own reputations by accusing others of faults they possess. However, it is unclear by what mechanism accusing others of one's own misdeeds helps to enhance the reputation of the accuser, and there is no evidence for boundary conditions for this devious tactic. The present research provides evidence that accusations suggest information about the accuser's values and that it is the assumed values of the accuser that are responsible for increases in the accuser's reputation. Furthermore, the present research demonstrates that accusations may only be effective in increasing an individual's reputation when the individual has faults to deflect. When an individual possesses no faults, accusations can actually damage the individual's reputation.
The lore of criminal accusation
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2006
In crime-obsessed cultures, the rudimentary trajectories of criminalizing processes are often overlooked. Specifically, processes of accusation that arrest everyday life, and enable possible enunciations of a criminal identity, seldom attract sustained attention. In efforts at redress, this paper considers discursive reference points through which contextually credible accusations of 'crime' are mounted. Focusing particularly on the ethical dimensions of what might be considered a 'lore' (rather than law) of criminal accusation, it examines several ways that exemplary cases reflect paradigms of accusatorial practice, accuser identity formation and accused response. With such assumptive grids in mind, the paper signals the potential value of rescuing accusation from fundamental attachments to (a criminally defined) order and disorder, as well as images of a distinct accuser and accused offender. It then alludes to the prospect of pursuing justice through less exclusive forms of accusation
Accusations are assertions that another has done something wrong. They occur in a variety of forms such as direct statements, questions, or nonverbal cues (e.g., an accusing stare, the honking of a car horn). As assertions, accusations construct social reality and assess actions as violations of the social and moral order. Accusations implicate agency by blaming or holding the accused as responsible for the wrongdoing. Accusatory discourse occurs in ordinary conversations and institutional discourse, and as such, there are different rules that govern how accusations unfold.