Title: Courting Legitimacy: Enregistering Legal Reasoning among US Criminal Trial Jurors
Abstract: This article discusses how law is produced semiotically as a category of social action through a study of jury decision making and the production of jury verdicts. In the US criminal justice system, citizens called for jury duty are interpellated as jurors and instructed in legal reasoning through encounters with a variety of texts. Jurors respond to the state’s hailing by producing themselves as competent jurors who can reason according to specifically legal forms of objectivity that may diverge from their everyday assessments of facts in reaching verdicts: for example, they can find a defendant legally “not guilty” while maintaining a belief in the defendant’s guilt. In ethnographic data discussed in this article, jurors affirm their competence as legal reasoners via the “enregisterment” of a style of reasoning that they link indexically to the constitutionally enshrined ideal of “impartiality.” In so doing, jurors recontextualize a style of reasoning, grounded in a logic of a “moralized objectivity of self-restraint” (Daston and Galison 1992), entextualized in the texts used to instruct them in legal reasoning during the trial process. Tracing these processes of enregisterment illustrates how legitimacy of law is semiotically mediated.
Publication Year: 2017
Publication Date: 2017-03-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot