Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T09:01:04.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Living with the decision that someone will die: Linguistic distance and empathy in jurors' death penalty decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Robin Conley
Robin Conley*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV 25755-2678, USAconleyr@marshall.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on ethnographic fieldwork in Texas death penalty trials, this article explores how language helps to make death penalty decisions possible—how specific communicative choices mediate and restrict jurors', attorneys', and judges' actions and experiences while serving and reflecting on capital trials. By analyzing postverdict interviews with jurors, trial language, and written legal language, I examine a variety of communicative practices through which defendants are dehumanized and thus considered deserving of death. This dehumanization is made possible through the physical and linguistic management of distance, which enables jurors to deny empathy with defendants and, in turn, justify their sentencing decisions. In addition, the article probes how jurors' linguistic choices can create distance between themselves and the reality of their decisions, further facilitating death sentences. (Law, empathy, deixis, agency, dehumanization, linguistic distance)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 42 , Issue 5 , November 2013 , pp. 503 - 526
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Bandes, Susan (2009). Repellent crimes and rational deliberation: Emotion and the death penalty. Vermont Law Review 33:489.Google Scholar
Belote, Farrald (1986). Jury research: Spotting jurors who can hurt. Litigation 12:17–20.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Oxford: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Billig, Michael (2008). The language of critical discourse analysis: The case of nominalization. Discourse & Society 19:783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, Karl (1934/1982). The deictic field of language and deictic words. In Jarvella, Robert J. & Klein, Wolfgang (eds.), Speech, place, and actions, 31–59. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Carrithers, Michael (2008). From inchoate pronouns to proper nouns: A theory fragment with 9/11, Gertrude Stein, and an East German ethnography. History and Anthropology 19(2):161–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charrow, Veda; Crandall, Jo Ann; & Charrow, Robert (1982). Characteristics and functions of legal language. In Kittredge, Richard & Lehrberger, John (eds.), Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domain, 175–90. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheng, Jesse (2010). Frontloading mitigation: The “legal” and the “human” in death penalty defense. Law & Social Inquiry 35(1):39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.; Schreuder, Robert; & Buttrick, Samuel (1983). Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22:245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, Robin, & Conley, John M. (2009). Stories from the jury room: How jurors use narrative to process evidence. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 49(2):25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, Francis (2001). Modal that as determiner and pronoun: The primacy of the cognitive-interactive dimension. English Language and Linguistics 5(2):297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadds, Mark R.; Allen, Jennifer L.; Oliver, Bonamy R.; Faulkner, Nathan; Legge, Katherine; Moul, Caroline; Woolgar, Matthew; & Scott, Stephen (2012). Love, eye contact and the developmental origins of empathy v. psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry 200:191–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duranti, Alessandro (1984). The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation. Text 4(4):277–311.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (2004). Agency in language. In Duranti, Alessandro (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 451–73. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick (2003). Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79(1):82–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick, & Levinson, Stephen (2006). Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick, & Stivers, Tanya (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, Bonnie; Lind, E. Allen; Johnson, Bruce C.; & O'Barr, William M. (1978). Speech style and impression format in a court setting: The effects of ‘powerful’ & ‘powerless’ speech. Journal of experimental social psychology 14:266–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigenson, Neal, & Park, Jaihyun (2006). Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior 30(2):143–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In Jarvella, Robert J. & Klein, Wolfgang (eds.), Speech, place, and actions, 31–59. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Garvey, Stephen (2000). The emotional economy of capital sentencing. NYU Law Review 75:26–73.Google Scholar
Geimer, William S., & Amsterdam, Jonathan (1989). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty trials. American Journal of Criminal Law 15:1–54.Google Scholar
Godobo-Madikizela, Pumla (2004). A human being died that night: A South African woman confronts the legacy of apartheid. New York: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96(3): 606–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32:1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Lt. Col. Dave (2009). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review 49(6):1447–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney, Craig (2004). Condemning the other in death penalty trials: Biographical racism, structural mitigation, and the empathic divide. DePaul Law Review 53:1557–89.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig; Sontag, Larelei; & Costanzo, Sally (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudences of death. Journal of Social Issues 50:149–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William (1990). Referential practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Lynne (1987). Legality and empathy. Michigan Law Review 85:1574, 1651–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Lynne (1988). The dialogue of heart and head. Cardozo Law Review 10:123.Google Scholar
Hirschova, Milada (1988). Nontypical uses of the demonstrative words takovy and tak. Nase Rec 57–61.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Joseph L. (1995). Where's the buck: Juror misperception of sentencing responsibility in death penalty cases. Indiana Law Journal 70(l):1137.Google Scholar
Hollan, Douglas W., & Throop, C. Jason (2010). The anthropology of empathy: Introduction. In Hollan, Douglas W. & Throop, C. Jason (eds.), The anthropology of empathy, 1–24. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund (1969). Formal and transcendental logic. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelman, Herbert C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues 29(4):25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, Sharon R. (2011). Empathy, democratic politics, and the impartial juror. Law, Culture, and the Humanities 7:81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin (1974). Remarks on this and that. Paper presented at the 10th Regional Chicago Linguistic Society meeting. Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Laster, Kathy, & O'Malley, Pat (1996). Sensitive new-age laws: The reassertion of emotionality in law. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 24:21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel (1985). Ethics and infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo. Trans. By Cohen, R. A.. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lifton, Robert J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzo, John (1993). Jurors' narratives of personal experience in deliberation talk. Text 13:267– 90.Google Scholar
Manzo, John (1996). Taking turns and taking sides: Opening scenes from two jury deliberations. Social Psychology Quarterly 59(2):107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George (2002). The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Massaro, Toni M. (1989). Empathy, legal storytelling, and the rule of law: New words, old wounds. Michigan Law Review 87(8):2099–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Greg (2000). Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32:879–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas, & Manzo, John (1993). On the sociology of justice: Theoretical notes from an actual jury deliberation. Sociological Theory 11(2):171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, Stanley (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Noonan, John T. (1976). Persons and masks of the law: Cardozo, Holmes, Jefferson, and Wythe as makers of the masks. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor (2012). Experiencing language. Anthropological Theory 12(2):142–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, & Capps, Lisa (1995). Constructing panic: The discourse of agoraphobia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, & Solomon, Olga (2010). Autistic sociality. Ethos 38(1):69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostman, Jan-Ola (1995). Recasting the deictic foundation, using physics and Finnish. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics, 247–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1997). The idea of public reason revisited. Chicago Law Review 64(3):765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, & Schegloff, Emmanuel (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15–21. New York: Irvington Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, Barbara (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1958). Proper Names. Mind 67(266):166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack (2010). Conversation analysis. In Hornberger, Nancy H. & McKay, Sandra Lee (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education, 492–527. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2007). Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Enfield, Nick & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives, 73–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen (2003). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Richard (1983). Deregulating death. The Supreme Court Review 1983:305–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimring, Franklin, & Hawkins, Gordon (1986). Capital punishment and the American agenda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar