A blog for the thoughts of students in Baylor Law School's Oral Advocacy Class.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Week 4
So, what do you make of Aristotle's thoughts on pathos?
29 comments:
Luke Lawrence
said...
The discussion of the various types of emotion was very interesting. I especially liked how Aristotle would bring out the differences between contrasting emotions, and show how each could be used. The discussion of pity sounded like the state of mind that one could present for a defendant in a criminal case. Then the discussion of being indignant and envy seemed like ways a prosecutor could counteract that state of mind.
My biggest confusion in these chapters was how to apply these lessons practically. I felt like Aristotle did a great job describing the various emotional states and how each could be used, but I had a hard time seeing how to actually produce those emotional states through rhetoric. However, I did feel like the discussion of kindliness did show how to create that perception. He gave very concrete descriptions of what one would do to make your audience believe you are kindly, and what one would do to contradict your opponent when he tries to portray himself as kindly.
I love this week’s photograph and am now curious both about this store and the church it is affiliated with. On a related note, I also have a fear of ghosts.
Overall I think categorizing and giving definition to human emotion is difficult to impossible. I commend Aristotle for attempting this task. I respectfully disagree most with Aristotle’s discussion of fear.
Aristotle talks about fear in an immediate sense- fear of what people think they will suffer at a particular time when they think they will suffer it and at the hands of a particular person whom they will suffer. His discussion of fear relates only to the here and now, and doesn’t account for a kind of fear that I think a lot of people in law school (especially the graduating seniors) feel- fear of the unknown. I fear what will happen in the future- will I find a job or not? What if I don’t? What if I do and don’t like it? What if this whole law school adventure was really just a miserable way to get into a massive amount of debt? This fear is real even though abstract. I cannot tell you I am afraid of a particular person doing a particular thing at a particular time, because I am afraid of what I don’t know.
Aristotle thinks that confidence is the opposite of fear, and that there are only two ways not to be fearful- have more resources or somehow be free of the fearful situation. I’m not sure that is true. He suggests that one must either be fearful or confident, but I think one can be both confident and fearful at the same time. In fact, I would even argue that if we wanted to defeat our fears we would need both confidence and courage. The Greeks have a rich tradition of storytelling, and their stories are filled with heroes who stood in the face of fear. Many times they had confidence (perhaps a resource like a weapon) but they also had the courage to face their fear. Even if you lack resources, you can still handle a fearful situation with just confidence in yourself and the courage to face your fear. Honor and glory, both in fiction and in life, don’t necessarily come only to those who win every battle. Sometimes just being willing to stand and fight is enough.
Lastly, I dislike Aristotle’s statements about the overall terribleness of humans. He says “most people are rather bad” and “human beings usually do wrong when they can.” I’m by no means the world’s biggest optimist, but Aristotle, at least in this passage, seems to be a glass half empty kind of guy.
I think Aristotle clearly took a lot of time examining himself and others when there were signs of emotion. I like that Aristotle points out that those who are laughed at when they are angry just get worse. It isn’t rare that a person can be angry and subsequently calmed by laughter; however, in many circumstances the laughter will just make the anger worse because it is taken as a sign that the person’s feelings are misguided or insignificant. While anger is dangerous because it distorts a person’s judgment, it is useful to the antagonist. The reading for that particular idea on page 119 reminded me of seeing fights when the opponent has been shown to be inferior. While some don’t want to rub salt in the wound, many of the great boxers will start laughing and taunting the opponent. Ali, Leonard, Robinson and Mayweather loved to publicly humiliate their opponents because the losing opponent further opens himself to an even worse attack. Not only is the humiliation helpful in having the opponent become his own worse enemy, the taunting reminds all those watching of who is truly better by having the victor show that the seemingly dangerous situation is not at all troubling to conqueror.
I will begin by agreeing with Mr. Lawrence—I have difficulty seeing how this examination of emotions is practically applicable to crafting a good argument—save of course that these are the emotions you want to appeal to in an argument.
As terrible as it sounds to say this, I’m not sure that such a detailed exploration of each emotion is actually necessary to crafting a good argument—Aristotle’s stance may be too theoretical. Reading through these chapters, it seems as if all the applications of pathos fall into two categories—seeking to cause empathy to your client or your self, or seeking to cause antipathy to your opponents or their clients. This being the case, I think Aristotle’s analysis ultimately somewhat redundant—when we invoke an emotional reaction, it will never be a single and individual emotion that is produced. Anger goes hand in hand with enmity and unkindliness. Calmness and friendly feelings also pair together well. I think that, at least as far as the practical application of rhetoric goes, it would be better to examine emotions in the context of how to make jurors feel antipathy for our opponents, and empathy or sympathy for us.
The other thing that struck me about the reading is that I believe Aristotle has left out a significant source of juror anger—anger due to acts that are seen as fundamentally unfair, as transgressing moral and ethical boundaries. For example, when jurors hear that an inventor has been essentially cheated out of a fortune by a large corporation they may become angry because his treatment was not fair. Similarly, there would be anger at the unfairness of the act if a woman was fired from her job and replaced by a man with half the experience and accomplishments, or vice versa. The very concept of fair play in one’s dealing with other people and with businesses, so very important in modern American society, seems to be entirely missing from Aristotle’s analysis.
Originally, after reading this section of the reading, I did tend to agree with Mr. Phillips. I found myself wondering what value an exploration of emotions has in crafting a good rhetorical argument, with the exception of knowing what you are appealing to. Then, I reread the section on Friendliness in Book 2, Chapter 4. Aristotle discusses friendliness and the characteristics that make one person more prone to being someone's friend, than another. Aristotle states that, "we are friendly.. to those with whom we want to be friends if they seem to want it.... Those who are pleasant to deal with, those who are not critical of people's thoughts." I think the answer to our question lies in this passage. The exploration of emotions, while it may serve a limited purpose in helping a rhetor, still does aid in a major way. If one is capable of understanding emotions and understanding how to use them in a correlative way to his audience's needs, then he will always have a supportive audience. I think this differs from appealing to your audience in that you are not seeking to elicit certain emotions from them, but rather are more aware of what effect any emotion has on you as the speaker and as a figure that the audience watches. If you are capable of understanding the root of your emotions, then you are capable of avoiding them altogether. Thus, you become a neutral speaker. As such, you will not draw adverse feelings from those who watch you, but rather only present more effective arguments. This ties in with earlier discussions Aristotle had in the dialogue in that the rhetor truly only should have his words, not his persona, not his image. That being said, asserting a neutral front only guarantees that people wont have a reason to disregard what you say, or to distrust you.
I really appreciated this reading assignment, but I did not enjoy reading it. It came off as a very bland reading. I recognize that it is important to evoke an emotional response and I see that there is some value in understanding the emotions of a human being. As noted by some of my colleagues above, however, I fail to see the direct application to legal rhetoric. I think this stems from a fact noted in the introduction, Aristotle wasn’t writing this originally in regard to rhetoric. It was more of a general exploration of the human psyche. I think he does a very good job at that, especially given how long ago he wrote this, but I think it is a limited tool for the job of crafting a legal argument. Not to say that emotional response should be ignored, but I think any teaching tool should more specifically state how one evokes any particular emotional response and why a rhetor would seek to do it in any given situation.
I also tend to disagree with one particular portion of Aristotle’s discussion of confidence. He takes the seemingly divergent stance that a person derives confidence from one of two places, either a lack of experience with the trial, or by experience with the trial. It seems to me that this is not true in a broad sense, oftentimes lack of experience with a trial can make an individual more fearful. Law school exams are a perfect example. The first exam that I took was a Larry Bates Contracts I exam. I was terrified of that test (fortunately I survived and now approach law school finals with a more confident air). This is a perfect example of how someone lacking experience with a trial can still be terrified by it. If I had been thinking rationally, I would have realized how many people have made it through that test and that it is only one test in a long series of tests I would be taking and passing (knock on wood). I also didn’t acknowledge that the worst thing that would happen to me (i.e. failure) is that I would be sitting in another Contracts I class the following spring. I was completely irrational in my fear because it was largely unknown and allowed my mind to race to the most ridiculous conclusion it could come up with. I think that a lot of humanity’s encounters with the unknown are very much like my experience with the Contracts I exam, we fear what we do not know.
In the picture, is the ghost hunting equipment like that of Ghostbusters, because I really want a proton pack!
I think this week’s reading showed an interesting dynamic to Greek thought and the Academy. On one side the Greeks thought of logic as the ultimate path to knowledge. Through logic the secrets of the universe and the gods could be revealed. However, on the other side the Greeks used emotion to convey ideas of humanity. Emotion was used to create great works of art, like Antigone and Oedipus Rex. Through emotion the secrets of the human mind could be revealed.
Aristotle’s attempt to classify emotions and their effects is an attempt to understand how the human mind works. Logic alone cannot work in rhetoric because the speaker is not talking to a machine. Emotions become a valuable way to connect to the audience in a way that will allow logos and ethos to be used. Emotion becomes important because it opens the door to the audience’s mind so that the speaker can be effective. So the study of emotion becomes the study of finding ways to connect to the audience/other people.
I have to tell this story because as a history nerd I hear cool stories that I can never apply except for a few rare occasions—so when a rare occasion appears I have to take it. In March of 1783, the American Revolution had just concluded and a situation with disgruntled officers quickly appeared on the horizon. The American officers were upset that the Continental Congress had not paid them for some time now. A meeting of the officers was held to discuss the possibility of the army marching on Philadelphia to take control of the Congress. George Washington caught wind of this and showed up uninvited to the meeting. All the officers knew Washington was against a military coup; but the officers had enough with Congress. Washington spoke—it was long winded and he used every bit of logic he could muster to try to convince the officers. The speech fell on death ears. It looked like nobody changed their minds. So then Washington pulled out a letter from a Congressman, but he had trouble reading it so he pulled out his reading glasses. As he was doing so, Washington said, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my county.” All the officers started to cry at this emotional display of vulnerability from their commander. After Washington finished reading the letter he left, and the officers voted unanimously to stay at their posts. If logic, or even the ethos of George Washington can’t get a job done, perhaps emotion can.
Since I have never read Aristotle before this book, it amazes me how thorough Aristotle was in his explanation of a subject. Specifically with this reading assignment, he fleshed out each human emotion with various different examples of when and how they would come about. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that it is essential to understand the underlying reasons why people do what they do. Usually behind every action that we take, there is an emotional reason why. Reading this assignment gave me new perspective on emotion. I especially thought that grouping emotions that are opposites allowed the reader to fully appreciate the emotion through contrast.
While I was reading Chapter 2 about anger, I was reminded of your lecture on making the audience feel like they have witnessed or were actually involved in the situation. If I remember correctly, the example in class concerned an ex-husband killing his ex-wife. In describing the ex-husband's angry reaction to seeing the new boyfriend's car in the driveway, it would make the audience understand the ex-husband's anger. In a criminal case, I believe that appealing to the fact finder's emotions is key. As a prosecutor, you would want to point out the defendant's "bad" emotions, such as anger, hate or envy. In the same way, you would want to make the audience feel negative emotions toward the defendant in their own right. As a defense attorney, I believe a good tactic would be to point out the defendant's "bad" emotions in a way to make the audience feel like the emotion was warranted. The more the audience feels like it could have happened to them, the more they will sympathize with the defendant.
There are a couple of specific things that I thought were interesting. In Chapter 2, Aristotle stated that there is pleasure that follows from the image of retaliating, such as that felt in dreams. I never thought of retaliation as creating pleasure, but instead as a method to get rid of pent up anger or rage. In comparing this image to that of a dream, I believe it gave the reader a clear picture of how a person could derive pleasure from retaliation. Additionally, I was also intrigued by the emotion in Chapter 11 of emulation. Even as the positive counterpart of envy, there seems to be a fine line between what is bad and good. What starts as emulation could quickly become envy. I think that drawing these fine lines between emotions that are in tension is a great way to present an argument to an audience.
I enjoyed Aristotle’s run through the emotions. I thought it was interesting how he repeatedly refers to “inferiors” when discussing several different emotions. Aristotle was apparently not worried about offending anyone since he openly refers to some people as inferior to others. This was just a part of his society. It is interesting to see how his discussion of the emotions might change in a society like ours that prides itself on equality. As a lawyer, it seems like you run the risk of coming off superior or condescending to a jury. Further, everyone already hates lawyers and thinks they are arrogant. This must be a difficult burden to overcome for an attorney, although it probably depends in large part on the type of case. The focus then shifts from understanding the emotions of “inferiors” to sounding humble and equal to the jury. I’m sure this also applies when counseling clients or potential clients.
I understand the emotions of my colleagues (though perhaps not as well as Aristotle) in regard to this week’s reading assignment. It is not as easy to see the connection between pathos and rhetoric as it is between ethos or logos and rhetoric. The detailed reading on emotions was difficult to stick with. It was made even more so by the fact that Aristotle seems to characterize many emotions as opposites. Ms. Gee and Mr. Silko have already discussed why they believe that fear and confidence are not opposite emotions so I won’t delve into the reasons why I agree. I also feel as though anger and calm are not opposites. I have known those who are angry to remain very calm in the right situations. In fact the scariest of offenders is not the person who succumbs to his anger, but the one who remains calm amidst anger. This person calculates his crime in calm and “cold blood”. If there is anything women have taught me it is that they are capable of feeling many emotions all at once; including calmness and anger.
That said, several have mentioned that it is tough to see the applicability of what Aristotle has written to modern legal rhetoric. I would respond that this seeming irrelevance means we should study pathos even more diligently that ethos and logos. Mr. Chu points out with his story that many times pathos is the only aspect of rhetoric that works. Those who are not studying to become lawyers cannot be expected to rely on logic the same way that we do. My fiancée makes her judgment calls based on her emotions and not on logic. One time I posed a riddle to her that required logical deduction in order to be answered correctly. Without a second of hesitation she correctly “guessed” the answer. To this day she is convinced that because, “that seems like an honest action and someone who acts honestly can be trusted” is a logical answer to the riddle. Many of the jurors who listen to our rhetoric will couch their logic in terms of what they feel is right. It certainly seems to me as though emotion is the most important aspect of persuasion.
The picture reminds me of the store in Waco that sells both medical scrubs and wedding dresses. I guess you never know when someone might do a medical themed wedding.
I find it interesting that these chapters were some of the first written discussions of human psychology. Since modern psychology focuses so much on the understanding of oneself, I was somewhat surprised to learn that some of the first discussions on psychology came from a desire to understand others and how to best persuade others.
As for the reading itself, while I agree that an understanding of emotions may not help you in persuading a particular group, I do think that to be an effective speaker overall, it is important to understand what drives people to commit the acts (good or bad) that they do. I think understanding people helps you create the unity and the sense of community which can be vital in public speaking.
When I read through the chapter on Anger, I was reminded of a conversation that my husband and I recently had. We were talking about how we were amazed at how mad we can get at each other. Aristotle says that those in love are one of the group of people that are easily stirred to anger. Before marriage, I might not have agreed with statement. However, I have come to understand that I get mad at my husband because I love him and because of that he also has the ability to hurt my feelings easier than other people. I think it ties into Aristotle’s statement that the unexpected hurts more. We expect those that we love not to hurt us, so when they do, it hurts more and can cause greater anger.
I had a problem with the chapter on Friendliness. I agreed with what Aristotle said, but I think it is too narrow of a view. He looks at it from the standpoint of a “nice” person looking for friends. But I think that “mean” people probably have friends too. But they attract “mean” friends and probably seek out those types of people to be friends with. But maybe it’s possible that the relationship that develops isn’t a true friendship and so Aristotle is still right.
I thought the chapter on friendship was interesting, but it seemed to deal with extremes. That is, it seemed to discuss friendships in the sense that we consider “best friends,” at least for the most part. Aristotle talks about how friends “are those to whom the same things are good and bad and who have the same friends and the same enemies.” I don’t think this is necessarily true in today’s society, except for perhaps the best of friends. But I think that many people get along very well in part due to their differences. Whether it be political differences, personality differences, or some other differences, it seems to me that friendly debate has a way of blossoming friendships. I also think that differences like that can be complimentary to each other. I do, however, see how many people who are the best of friends do share the characteristics that Aristotle describes – likes for the same things, dislikes for the same things, shared friends, and shared enemies. It’s just that for more casual friends these things may not be true. I do believe that a good way to judge a good friend is to see if he does something that Aristotle describes – “doing [a favor] unasked and not advertising what has been done.” True friends do unasked favors in the interest of friendship.
The anger and hatred part was an interesting distinction. I never really thought about the difference between anger and hatred, but Aristotle is right – anger results from an event that occurs, whereas hatred may just come from a hatred towards a certain group.
I found myself agreeing with John a lot. I think emotion is the most important aspect of persuasion. Although it seems more emphasis is put on the character and perception of the speaker, I believe the balance should favor emotion. The importance of appealing to and provoking the proper emotion could not be more important in our profession. I also found myself disagreeing with some of Aristotle’s pairings of emotion. Although this may have been done for explanatory reasons, I think it is difficult to analyze a single emotion in isolation. Emotions are complex and feelings of anger are often combined with feelings of sadness, while feelings of regret often come with feelings of motivation, etc. I think beyond logic, emotions drive the average person. We, as law students, are almost trained to set aside our emotions and evaluate things logically no matter how unnatural and improper it feels. This type of training isn’t given (or wanted) by most, and as a result, emotions reign supreme. I believe the triggering of the right emotion can provide greater results than any logical explanation. People are emotional creatures, and understanding what drives people’s emotions can go a long way. Although the context of the reading is difficult to apply to the legal profession, I look forward to lecture to gain a better understanding of the application.
I like what Cheryl and Drew said. I agree that the reading has generally helped me to identify emotional reasons for what I do. I can't say I disagree with the little I've understood from the reading (besides that whole habitual stuff being pleasurable). While I was reading the assignment, I began to wonder how Aristotle gained his insight. However it came to him, I like that he boiled his thoughts down to such basic statements.
I've noticed on occassion that making an opponent angry, and then fueling that anger, can give you the advantage. I think most of us lose our focus when we get angry and perform worse. It reminded me of what we did to the other teams when I played school basketball. Sometimes, though, you'd get the guy who would catch fire when he got mad.
What I like most from the reading was "The Causes of Friendship" from page 127. Doing a favor really is productive of friendship. It reminded me of something I've tried to do. A while back, I started to look for opportunities to do nice things for people that I didn't really like. It made a huge difference in the way I felt towards them. Unfortunately, I lost the motivation to continue that practice.
Once again, it has really helped me to read the comments of my classmates. I'm glad there are other people around to help me grasp everything.
Aristotle’s reflections on fear seemed very useful in civil plaintiff’s lawyer work, especially products liability and other tort cases. Fear is an effective motivator; just ask any 1Q. But fear only exists when possibility of harm is imminent. It is imperative for plaintiff’s lawyers to present harm as real and imminent. In Product Liability and Personal Injury Trial Law, we discussed the effect of reaching a juror’s “Reptile Brain.” This occurs when the lawyer convinces a juror that the defendant’s conduct could harm the juror or the juror’s loved ones in the near future if the conduct was allowed to continue. Once the Reptile Brain is reached, the juror decides he/she needs to take action to prevent this harm from occurring, which usually results in an advantageous jury finding or damages award for the plaintiff. There are different ways to reach the Reptile Brain, but all deal with conjuring up fear in the juror’s mind.
Aristotle points out that “no one is afraid if he is of those who thinks he will suffer nothing.” Applying this to personal injury law, the plaintiff should present the injured party as a typical, relatable person that was injured doing something all normal people do. This helps the juror put themselves in the plaintiff’s shoes. Combining this with the inverse of Aristotle’s discussion on confidence greatly helps the plaintiff lawyer’s argument. When people hear a person’s car wreck story, they tend to think they would have avoided the wreck because they would have acted differently than the injured driver. The plaintiff’s lawyer needs to paint the picture so that the jury understands the plaintiff did not have enough “resources” (i.e. time, space, line of sight, awareness) to avoid the collision. When the juror reflects on his/her own driving skills, they will probably be less confident that they would have escaped the wreck. “Would I be able to avoid a double-cab pick-up taking a corner at 55 mph on a two lane road?” The juror will be more likely to think that the same thing could easily happen to them.
I don’t buy into everything Ari has to say about Emulation. But its role as the flip side of Envy has some merit. The initial desire for something someone else has is as innate and, in its purist since, uncontrollable as the initial lust for someone or the initial jolt of pride for a job well done. However, it is our response to this primary instinct that determines our moralistic sense. For example, one could choose to ignore the carnal craving if indeed it would be wrong to slake the thirst; or one could rain hosannas down on others who helped in the accomplishments rather than seek more praise. Likewise in response to the envious yen, one can either simply be disdainful of the other person for what they have; or one can seek to achieve that same thing. Whether one feels derision for the thing or the drive to achieve it, Ari seems to argue, may depend on the thing itself. If this thing is worth having, and thus good, one may feel compelled to seek it for oneself. If this thing is not worth having, either because it has no value or some “evil” value to the person, one may feel only contempt for the other that they have it. What such thing, though, would cause a person to feel only contempt for the one who has it rather than a want, if not need, to seek it. Ari mentions fortune, and by this I think he means the way by which a person comes into money, position, friends, etc. When someone wins the lottery, it’s we don’t covet the winning numbers, rather we covet the money the winner receives in return for his or her anti-prognostication skills. One cannot emulate luck, in this case picking the correct lotto numbers, by shear will of force and determination. But we can feel disdain or contempt for the person whom luck randomly smiled upon and allowed their numbers to hit on that day.
This week’s picture had me bouncing back and forth between pity and indignation. I pity a person who would actually invest the money and time necessary to run a store that sells ghost busting equipment. However, if the store generates a profit, I might feel some indignation. Their success might shift my viewpoint of the store’s owner from fellow (eccentric) person to person unworthy of success (by virtue of owning a ghost busting store). But maybe this is just envy.
I really enjoyed this week’s reading assignment and thought it was a good refresher on emotional motivation. In trial law, I think people often underestimate the value of the jury’s raw emotional state. Juries aren’t made up of legal scholars who flesh out all the subtleties of complex arguments—often they barely seem to be paying attention. However, whether consciously or not, people will remember how they felt about you, your client, and your opposition. While emotional manipulation may be second nature for many people, it never hurts to go back and reexamine outside sources for angles you might be missing. Aristotle has created a helpful pocket reference for this purpose.
I found this week’s reading assignment a little easier to read than in the previous weeks. Although Aristotle’s thorough examination of emotions seems abstract at times, it is interesting to recognize that the emotions felt by those in ancient times is still relevant today. I agree with some of my peers to a certain extent on why it is necessary to examine these emotions so thoroughly when constructing arguments, however, I also realize the extreme importance of knowing your audience and appealing to their senses and core being through the use of emotion as a persuasive tool to get the hearers to act. In the same vein, there was a specific point Aristotle made in Chapter Five about fear that reminded me of this concept found in a recently published book that my Products Liability professor talked about last quarter. Aristotle says, “The result is that whenever it is better [for a speaker’s case] that they [i.e., the members of the audience] experience fear, he should make them realize that they are liable to suffering…” My professor talked about this concept called “The Reptile,” which basically says that every person has this sense of reptile in him. As a lawyer you want the jury to feel that their inner reptile is being threatened and to act accordingly. For example, if something happened to a child and the jury has children you want them to fear that if this action by the defendant goes unpunished, this could potentially happen to their own child. As I read Aristotle, I could see how this concept could be a source of persuasion.
I also found a point Chapter 3 about calmness interesting and still holds true today. Aristotle explains that people are calm if their anger has cooled with time and is not in its first stage, for time makes anger cease. I know when someone makes me angry or mad, I don’t like that person to immediately start talking and asking me questions and trying to resolve the issue. In fact, it makes me more upset and my initial reaction is to explode. To avoid this, I would rather be alone and clear my mind and then later sit down and talk about it when my initial stages of anger stop. That way I can think clearly and speak civilly to work out the issue.
In Chapter Seven Aristotle defines kindliness. In his definition I immediately connected with what Aristotle was describing when he said that kindliness is a service to one need, not in return for anything nor that one rendering the service may get anything but as something for the recipient. Last weekend I visited my fiancé, Will, in Galveston. We went for a walk around his neighborhood, and we saw an older lady who Will seemed to know. He stopped and said hello. When I asked him about how he knew the woman who lived a few doors down from his house, he told me that the other day he was running in the neighborhood and saw this woman with her hands full struggling to get from her front door to her car with all these boxes. So, Will stopped and offered to help. He introduced himself and the two talked for a bit. As soon as he was finished packing her car, she had $10 in her hand. Will refused to take it and he told her, “Please keep your money, I wanted to help. Plus this is what neighbors do, they help each other.”
Its official. Reading Aristotle is just like reading a Warshak Ink print. This might explain why a lot of my applications of the reading are pretty shallow--right now, most of my experiences seem to be contained to classes, tests, competitions, deadlines, etc. so, when I read, “for what is far off is not feared” I thought, “maybe that is why we procrastinate for finals!”
It’s fun to try to apply much of Aristotle’s logic to a single situation. For example, in a competition, Aristotle would suggest we dislike our competition because we are angry at those we fear and we fear those who are better than us or possibly better than us because we fear inadequacy. We fear inadequacy because it leads to shame. Which is why I think Mr. Silko made such a great point—if we look to the source of our shame and rationalize it, that driving fear is much less threatening. Like he said, he was terrified of failing Contracts I and then he realized the worst thing that could happen was he take it again. The fear in that is that people will judge you. But like Aristotle says, people don’t judge those who misfortune come to. They judge and resent and feel anger towards those who place them in a position of fearing for one’s self. Lets hope I can keep that in mind for PC exercises!
The Chapter on Pity is one of the passages that have struck me so far as having the most applicability to lawyers. The reason for this is that, according to Aristotle, pitiable things include those that are “destructive, consisting of grief and pains, and things that are ruinous.” These are the same things that necessarily must be present in some form in a lawsuit (civil or criminal). After all, to have standing to bring a lawsuit a plaintiff must have injury in fact or society must have suffered some wrong at the hands of a criminal. Invoking pity towards a party to the lawsuit or the victim of a crime is a great strategy since Aristotle defines pity as in part “a certain pain at an apparently destructive or painful even happening to one who does not deserve it.” There is a short step from feeling this pain to taking action to remedy the one who is pitied. The fact that pity is so powerful makes it absolutely necessary to place persons on the jury that can feel pity towards the client or victim of a crime. Aristotle recognizes this by devoting a section towards identifying those who feel pity. I think this section is even more applicable to American judicial argument than Athenian since we can actually pick who we want on a jury instead of trying to appeal to a mass of people. This reminds me of something I heard from a lawyer not too long ago when he advised: “A case is won or lost in voir dire.” Therefore it is essential that some jurors are people “like [the defendant, etc.] in age, in character, in habits, in rank, in birth.” This makes me see the Batson case as even more important. Finally Aristotle adds a bit of strategy: “things are more pitiable when just having happened.” The note explains that some people would dress up in rags as in a tragedy to impart pity. So the gratuitous neck brace in court is nothing new!
Pathos is fascinating to me because I think when you strip away argument, logic, reason and rationality, an individual’s decision is ultimately predicated on their emotional response to an issue. I believe that fear is the most critical emotion articulated in Aristotle’s psychological taxonomy because it functions on such a base level.
First, I had never thought about what conjures fear: “Fear may be defined as a pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the future.” When I’m afraid of something, I usually don’t stop to think “Hey, I’m afraid of something that hasn’t even happened yet and may never happen.” The more I started to think about it, the more I realized how much of my own anxiety is founded on something based on speculation and the illusory.
I do think that Aristotle left out one important aspect related to fear: it is fertile ground for the other negative emotions outlined, and our actions can flow from that. I believe it is Yoda who once said, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” If a person is sufficiently afraid, regardless of whether or not that fear is founded, there is an automatic, instinctual reflex to protect oneself. Anger, hatred, enmity, etc. are effective defense mechanisms that stem from being afraid. And as Yoda said, there is a lot of suffering that can come from that.
Of course, world history is jam packed with the consequences of skillful rhetoricians manipulating that fear-reflex into action. But I think it operates on a more mundane and subtle level as well. It colors our prejudices, who we choose to associate with, where we live and what we believe to be true about the world. Certainly there are juries out there whose verdicts have not reflected the objective facts of a case, but instead a fear-based perception of those facts. Hitting the right emotional cues with the right words can have a profound impact on the choices made by others, for better or for worse.
"I really liked the discussion about emotions this week. It could not have come at a more appropriate time. I was in Quantico, Virginia going through the last phase of my medical screening for the Marine Corps. I ran pretty much the entire gambit of what Aristotle was discussing, though I do disagree with some of the things he said about them. I agree with Kim Gee about fear not only being in the here and now, but also fear of the future. I also think that Aristotle got it wrong about confidence being the opposite of fear. I like John Wayne's take on it better: being afraid and going ahead anyway. That is confidence, and it's not the opposite of fear, but the acceptance of it and overcoming the paralysis it can harbor. But all of this is a bit too theoretical for me to see a real way to use it in sculpting an argument. People's emotions are more complex than pure theory. I believe application would be more practical, a cold way to say it is, let's not study the emotion so much as how to manipulate them. I think a study of emotions without a study of how to mold them would be incomplete. Aristole's analysis of emotions is thorough, but is without application. It reads more like a psychologist's description of normal human emotions, perhaps this is how you use them--learn them first and only then can you figure out how to shape your argument.
Nothing, so far, has made Aristotle more relevant to me than working through mock trial the last few months. Last night, we returned from the AAJ competition after suffering a tough loss in the finals and when i got home I started reading the assignment for today. As I was reading, I couldn't help but try and relate everything I read to things that had happened during rounds over the weekend. The quote that stood out to me the most was right at the very beginning of the reading and to me, it encapsulates such a major concept of trying cases in front of a jury. "But since rhetoric is concerned with making a judgment , it is necessary not only to look to the argument, that it may be demonstrative and persuasive, but also for the speaker to construct a view of himself as a certain kind of person and to prepare the judge; for it makes much difference in regard to persuasion that the speaker seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way ." I read this passage out loud several times and for whatever reason, after this weekend, it really stuck with me and made me wonder how this very concept had impacted our case. The passage then went on to talk about the importance of the speaker's wisdom, virtue and good will. I could not agree more that these three things make all the difference for a lawyer trying the case. The truth is that while the jury will do tehir best to look at the facts and apply the law in a very technical sense, the jury is generally deciding how well they like the lawyers and the clients. Offering yourself up as a calm, reasonable, wise, and virtuous individual will make your legal arguments make more sense and really resonate with the jurors.
Aristotle has a good grasp on what really makes people tick. I think practically understanding human emotion is useful in all aspects of life. It is helpful to understand you clients, your opponents, your associates, and your witnesses. It is also important to be aware of the emotions you instill in your audience at every turn. A lawyer who batters a witness on cross examination may end up getting the jury's anger directed toward himself. Aristotle's discussion on calmness gives you a way to redirect anger and come off looking like the good guy. I also think that calmness can lead a jury to see you as a friend and someone to admire. I also found it intriguing who Aristotle thinks can be a friend. I don't think that friendship is confined to those with good moral character and are neat in appearance. However, I do see how these qualities in acquaintances make it more likely that you will behave in a friendly manner towards them. Personally I am more likely to strike up a conversation on the bus with someone who seems to be good natured and more likely to want to get to know a classmate who is not critical of others. When I read about shame it brought to mind an argument that I heard from a prosecutor once. This attorney made it seem like the juries had been making the wrong decisions and criminals were getting released and people were talking about how stupid the juries were. The prosecutor then asked the jury to think about what they wanted people saying about them. This was a blatant attempt to get the jury to find guilty for personal reasons. I think it is important to remember how many emotions you can appeal to when making arguments to the jury. There are a lot of options on how to get a group of 12 strangers to decide in your favor. I think many lawyers make the mistake of focusing on appealing to anger or pity and ignore the other ways. It is also useful to understand the opposites of emotions to be able to counteract your opponent's arguments.
I found chapter 7, on Kindliness, to be particularly interesting. Under Aristotle's definition and examples of kindliness, or benevolence, I was instantly struck by the image that many people have of lawyers in general, which is to say that they are counter to Aristotle's definition as merely self serving, greedy and only out for their own interests.
In today's political and social climate, where tort reform is an issue that is pushed upon the American public in such a one-sided manner, I believe that it is imperative for every attorney in every case to convey not only to the jury, but also to their own client, that they posses this "Kindliness" (as Aristotle puts it). When thinking of it in this light, that of a trial or client consultation, I think it is less of an independent trait (kindliness) and more of a piece of the whole identity of the speaker (or attorney) as being trustworthy, and therefore worthy of being listened to and relied upon. If an attorney cannot gain the trust of the jury, the jury will not find in his/her client's favor, it's that simple.
We are viewed as a extension of our clients and as such we need to represent ourselves in a manner that conveys Aristotle's "kindliness". Clearly, this is not a trait that can be feigned, people will see right through it. Therefore, it may be of great importance that in every case the lawyer chooses to take, he finds a genuine belief in his client's cause, not necessarily in the client, but certainly in what is the RIGHT and Just outcome. This belief and approach to the issue ties in many different characteristics of the trustworthy lawyer, like honesty, and truth seeking, and certainly Aristotle's "kindliness".
I, like Luke, thought the discussion of the various types of emotions was interesting but struggled in distilling a method or process that this information could be used practically in rhetorical situations.
I was also worried because I am the worst person, perhaps on the face of the earth, about remembering names, and there is a section that indicated that forgetting names was belittlement. Great, just what I need, Im unintentionally belittling people left and right.
I liked it when he made the distinction between hating certain classes and how that was permanent, and classifying people in those classes, which was a little different. I have never thought of it like that, but I think it makes complete sense and is pretty insightful.
I also like the part where he discussed how calm people invoke more fear than those who are quick tempered because you never know how and when they are going to act/react.
I also thought it was pretty insightful when Aristotle said that for fear to continue, there must be some hope of being saved from the cause of agony. That sounds like a plot of a movie or something.
While reading books such as this one, I always forget the time and place where the work was written because a lot of the concepts are pretty timeless, but it always catches me off guard when they start discussing relationships with young boys which was accepted somewhat during the time this was written.
The commentary talked about how friendliness and enmity are more closely related to, and revealing of, character than anger and calmness. This is probably true, given that Aristotle's definitions of being friendly or hateful tended to reflect deep-seated value judgments about people rather than spur-of-the-moment decisions.
I think one set of characteristics may be more useful to play on than the other, though, depending on the environment. I have been taught, through several sources, that anger is normally the most powerful emotion in the decision-making process when it's present. When there is no lasting relationship that will continue after a decision is made, using the audience's anger can be a very persuasive techinque. Some of the drawbacks associated with a decision will be eliminated because there will be no more menaningful contact with the people affected by your decision.
In circumstances where you have to live with your choices, I think you see more fo a reliance on reasoned results. This is more similar to the views expressed in Chapters 4 and 5, relying on deeper and more thorough feelings.
I found chapter four’s discussion on anger and hatred very interesting. I had never really taken the time to sit down and parse out the difference between the two emotions and just sort of lumped them together. I think it’s helpful to draw a distinction between the two. Many times as attorneys we are going to be delivering our arguments in front of hostile audiences, and understanding the degree of animosity felt towards your side will help you better craft your argument and strategy. Aristotle thought it was important to understand that anger can be cured in time; but hatred cannot. He even went on to say that the angry man may pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated. I think this might be a little extreme of a view, but the principle behind it is sound. If you have a client that people passionately hate you shouldn’t spend all your time trying to make them grow to love your client. You should instead try to mitigate the audience’s ill feelings toward your client, and explain why they are the way they are.
I also found the discussion on indignation very interesting. Aristotle says indignation is pain caused by the sight of undeserved good fortune, and that the newly rich give more offence than those whose wealth is of long standing and inherited. People can’t stand the idea of someone who is undeserving coming into a financial windfall. This feeling is the main impetus behind the tort reform movement. Understanding this concept and realizing that you have to do everything you can to make your client seem deserving of the remedy you are asking for will greatly increase your chances for success.
The very first thing I thought about during the reading and couldn't wait to write about was Aristotle's use of "pathos" in describing different types of emotions (ie. anger, fear) and how those emotions effect the speakers perception on the audience. I have asked very few questions in law school (I think that this is the only question I can actually remember asking) and it was in PC directed towards professor Powell - I asked him during an advocacy lecture how much can a defense attorney say about his relationship with the client in hopes of gaining his client some sort of credibility. I asked this because I have a feeling that some of my work will come from my high school friends getting in trouble. (Some are currently asking for my services but I still have to pass that little thing called the bar). Some of these kids are rough and I know that the jury will see that so I wanted to know if I could get up there and tell them how I came to represent them and how good a kids I know they really are. Powell said that this is actually a good tactic and should be used if you have a genuine relationship with your client. He also said that no matter how much they like you, if you don't persuade them with the fact then they will still find against your client. He told a story about a jury member telling him after a trial that he was "so sorry" for throwing the book at his client. When Powell asked why the jury member felt this way he said b/c he liked Powell so much that he felt bad about find against him. Powell said that a trial isn't just a "popularity" contest, without a well formed case the jury will find against you even though they have come to like you.
29 comments:
The discussion of the various types of emotion was very interesting. I especially liked how Aristotle would bring out the differences between contrasting emotions, and show how each could be used. The discussion of pity sounded like the state of mind that one could present for a defendant in a criminal case. Then the discussion of being indignant and envy seemed like ways a prosecutor could counteract that state of mind.
My biggest confusion in these chapters was how to apply these lessons practically. I felt like Aristotle did a great job describing the various emotional states and how each could be used, but I had a hard time seeing how to actually produce those emotional states through rhetoric. However, I did feel like the discussion of kindliness did show how to create that perception. He gave very concrete descriptions of what one would do to make your audience believe you are kindly, and what one would do to contradict your opponent when he tries to portray himself as kindly.
I love this week’s photograph and am now curious both about this store and the church it is affiliated with. On a related note, I also have a fear of ghosts.
Overall I think categorizing and giving definition to human emotion is difficult to impossible. I commend Aristotle for attempting this task. I respectfully disagree most with Aristotle’s discussion of fear.
Aristotle talks about fear in an immediate sense- fear of what people think they will suffer at a particular time when they think they will suffer it and at the hands of a particular person whom they will suffer. His discussion of fear relates only to the here and now, and doesn’t account for a kind of fear that I think a lot of people in law school (especially the graduating seniors) feel- fear of the unknown. I fear what will happen in the future- will I find a job or not? What if I don’t? What if I do and don’t like it? What if this whole law school adventure was really just a miserable way to get into a massive amount of debt? This fear is real even though abstract. I cannot tell you I am afraid of a particular person doing a particular thing at a particular time, because I am afraid of what I don’t know.
Aristotle thinks that confidence is the opposite of fear, and that there are only two ways not to be fearful- have more resources or somehow be free of the fearful situation. I’m not sure that is true. He suggests that one must either be fearful or confident, but I think one can be both confident and fearful at the same time. In fact, I would even argue that if we wanted to defeat our fears we would need both confidence and courage. The Greeks have a rich tradition of storytelling, and their stories are filled with heroes who stood in the face of fear. Many times they had confidence (perhaps a resource like a weapon) but they also had the courage to face their fear. Even if you lack resources, you can still handle a fearful situation with just confidence in yourself and the courage to face your fear. Honor and glory, both in fiction and in life, don’t necessarily come only to those who win every battle. Sometimes just being willing to stand and fight is enough.
Lastly, I dislike Aristotle’s statements about the overall terribleness of humans. He says “most people are rather bad” and “human beings usually do wrong when they can.” I’m by no means the world’s biggest optimist, but Aristotle, at least in this passage, seems to be a glass half empty kind of guy.
I think Aristotle clearly took a lot of time examining himself and others when there were signs of emotion. I like that Aristotle points out that those who are laughed at when they are angry just get worse. It isn’t rare that a person can be angry and subsequently calmed by laughter; however, in many circumstances the laughter will just make the anger worse because it is taken as a sign that the person’s feelings are misguided or insignificant. While anger is dangerous because it distorts a person’s judgment, it is useful to the antagonist. The reading for that particular idea on page 119 reminded me of seeing fights when the opponent has been shown to be inferior. While some don’t want to rub salt in the wound, many of the great boxers will start laughing and taunting the opponent. Ali, Leonard, Robinson and Mayweather loved to publicly humiliate their opponents because the losing opponent further opens himself to an even worse attack. Not only is the humiliation helpful in having the opponent become his own worse enemy, the taunting reminds all those watching of who is truly better by having the victor show that the seemingly dangerous situation is not at all troubling to conqueror.
I will begin by agreeing with Mr. Lawrence—I have difficulty seeing how this examination of emotions is practically applicable to crafting a good argument—save of course that these are the emotions you want to appeal to in an argument.
As terrible as it sounds to say this, I’m not sure that such a detailed exploration of each emotion is actually necessary to crafting a good argument—Aristotle’s stance may be too theoretical. Reading through these chapters, it seems as if all the applications of pathos fall into two categories—seeking to cause empathy to your client or your self, or seeking to cause antipathy to your opponents or their clients. This being the case, I think Aristotle’s analysis ultimately somewhat redundant—when we invoke an emotional reaction, it will never be a single and individual emotion that is produced. Anger goes hand in hand with enmity and unkindliness. Calmness and friendly feelings also pair together well. I think that, at least as far as the practical application of rhetoric goes, it would be better to examine emotions in the context of how to make jurors feel antipathy for our opponents, and empathy or sympathy for us.
The other thing that struck me about the reading is that I believe Aristotle has left out a significant source of juror anger—anger due to acts that are seen as fundamentally unfair, as transgressing moral and ethical boundaries. For example, when jurors hear that an inventor has been essentially cheated out of a fortune by a large corporation they may become angry because his treatment was not fair. Similarly, there would be anger at the unfairness of the act if a woman was fired from her job and replaced by a man with half the experience and accomplishments, or vice versa. The very concept of fair play in one’s dealing with other people and with businesses, so very important in modern American society, seems to be entirely missing from Aristotle’s analysis.
Originally, after reading this section of the reading, I did tend to agree with Mr. Phillips. I found myself wondering what value an exploration of emotions has in crafting a good rhetorical argument, with the exception of knowing what you are appealing to. Then, I reread the section on Friendliness in Book 2, Chapter 4. Aristotle discusses friendliness and the characteristics that make one person more prone to being someone's friend, than another. Aristotle states that, "we are friendly.. to those with whom we want to be friends if they seem to want it.... Those who are pleasant to deal with, those who are not critical of people's thoughts." I think the answer to our question lies in this passage. The exploration of emotions, while it may serve a limited purpose in helping a rhetor, still does aid in a major way. If one is capable of understanding emotions and understanding how to use them in a correlative way to his audience's needs, then he will always have a supportive audience. I think this differs from appealing to your audience in that you are not seeking to elicit certain emotions from them, but rather are more aware of what effect any emotion has on you as the speaker and as a figure that the audience watches. If you are capable of understanding the root of your emotions, then you are capable of avoiding them altogether. Thus, you become a neutral speaker. As such, you will not draw adverse feelings from those who watch you, but rather only present more effective arguments. This ties in with earlier discussions Aristotle had in the dialogue in that the rhetor truly only should have his words, not his persona, not his image. That being said, asserting a neutral front only guarantees that people wont have a reason to disregard what you say, or to distrust you.
I really appreciated this reading assignment, but I did not enjoy reading it. It came off as a very bland reading. I recognize that it is important to evoke an emotional response and I see that there is some value in understanding the emotions of a human being. As noted by some of my colleagues above, however, I fail to see the direct application to legal rhetoric. I think this stems from a fact noted in the introduction, Aristotle wasn’t writing this originally in regard to rhetoric. It was more of a general exploration of the human psyche. I think he does a very good job at that, especially given how long ago he wrote this, but I think it is a limited tool for the job of crafting a legal argument. Not to say that emotional response should be ignored, but I think any teaching tool should more specifically state how one evokes any particular emotional response and why a rhetor would seek to do it in any given situation.
I also tend to disagree with one particular portion of Aristotle’s discussion of confidence. He takes the seemingly divergent stance that a person derives confidence from one of two places, either a lack of experience with the trial, or by experience with the trial. It seems to me that this is not true in a broad sense, oftentimes lack of experience with a trial can make an individual more fearful. Law school exams are a perfect example. The first exam that I took was a Larry Bates Contracts I exam. I was terrified of that test (fortunately I survived and now approach law school finals with a more confident air). This is a perfect example of how someone lacking experience with a trial can still be terrified by it. If I had been thinking rationally, I would have realized how many people have made it through that test and that it is only one test in a long series of tests I would be taking and passing (knock on wood). I also didn’t acknowledge that the worst thing that would happen to me (i.e. failure) is that I would be sitting in another Contracts I class the following spring. I was completely irrational in my fear because it was largely unknown and allowed my mind to race to the most ridiculous conclusion it could come up with. I think that a lot of humanity’s encounters with the unknown are very much like my experience with the Contracts I exam, we fear what we do not know.
In the picture, is the ghost hunting equipment like that of Ghostbusters, because I really want a proton pack!
I think this week’s reading showed an interesting dynamic to Greek thought and the Academy. On one side the Greeks thought of logic as the ultimate path to knowledge. Through logic the secrets of the universe and the gods could be revealed. However, on the other side the Greeks used emotion to convey ideas of humanity. Emotion was used to create great works of art, like Antigone and Oedipus Rex. Through emotion the secrets of the human mind could be revealed.
Aristotle’s attempt to classify emotions and their effects is an attempt to understand how the human mind works. Logic alone cannot work in rhetoric because the speaker is not talking to a machine. Emotions become a valuable way to connect to the audience in a way that will allow logos and ethos to be used. Emotion becomes important because it opens the door to the audience’s mind so that the speaker can be effective. So the study of emotion becomes the study of finding ways to connect to the audience/other people.
I have to tell this story because as a history nerd I hear cool stories that I can never apply except for a few rare occasions—so when a rare occasion appears I have to take it. In March of 1783, the American Revolution had just concluded and a situation with disgruntled officers quickly appeared on the horizon. The American officers were upset that the Continental Congress had not paid them for some time now. A meeting of the officers was held to discuss the possibility of the army marching on Philadelphia to take control of the Congress. George Washington caught wind of this and showed up uninvited to the meeting. All the officers knew Washington was against a military coup; but the officers had enough with Congress. Washington spoke—it was long winded and he used every bit of logic he could muster to try to convince the officers. The speech fell on death ears. It looked like nobody changed their minds. So then Washington pulled out a letter from a Congressman, but he had trouble reading it so he pulled out his reading glasses. As he was doing so, Washington said, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my county.” All the officers started to cry at this emotional display of vulnerability from their commander. After Washington finished reading the letter he left, and the officers voted unanimously to stay at their posts. If logic, or even the ethos of George Washington can’t get a job done, perhaps emotion can.
Since I have never read Aristotle before this book, it amazes me how thorough Aristotle was in his explanation of a subject. Specifically with this reading assignment, he fleshed out each human emotion with various different examples of when and how they would come about. As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that it is essential to understand the underlying reasons why people do what they do. Usually behind every action that we take, there is an emotional reason why. Reading this assignment gave me new perspective on emotion. I especially thought that grouping emotions that are opposites allowed the reader to fully appreciate the emotion through contrast.
While I was reading Chapter 2 about anger, I was reminded of your lecture on making the audience feel like they have witnessed or were actually involved in the situation. If I remember correctly, the example in class concerned an ex-husband killing his ex-wife. In describing the ex-husband's angry reaction to seeing the new boyfriend's car in the driveway, it would make the audience understand the ex-husband's anger. In a criminal case, I believe that appealing to the fact finder's emotions is key. As a prosecutor, you would want to point out the defendant's "bad" emotions, such as anger, hate or envy. In the same way, you would want to make the audience feel negative emotions toward the defendant in their own right. As a defense attorney, I believe a good tactic would be to point out the defendant's "bad" emotions in a way to make the audience feel like the emotion was warranted. The more the audience feels like it could have happened to them, the more they will sympathize with the defendant.
There are a couple of specific things that I thought were interesting. In Chapter 2, Aristotle stated that there is pleasure that follows from the image of retaliating, such as that felt in dreams. I never thought of retaliation as creating pleasure, but instead as a method to get rid of pent up anger or rage. In comparing this image to that of a dream, I believe it gave the reader a clear picture of how a person could derive pleasure from retaliation. Additionally, I was also intrigued by the emotion in Chapter 11 of emulation. Even as the positive counterpart of envy, there seems to be a fine line between what is bad and good. What starts as emulation could quickly become envy. I think that drawing these fine lines between emotions that are in tension is a great way to present an argument to an audience.
I enjoyed Aristotle’s run through the emotions. I thought it was interesting how he repeatedly refers to “inferiors” when discussing several different emotions. Aristotle was apparently not worried about offending anyone since he openly refers to some people as inferior to others. This was just a part of his society. It is interesting to see how his discussion of the emotions might change in a society like ours that prides itself on equality. As a lawyer, it seems like you run the risk of coming off superior or condescending to a jury. Further, everyone already hates lawyers and thinks they are arrogant. This must be a difficult burden to overcome for an attorney, although it probably depends in large part on the type of case. The focus then shifts from understanding the emotions of “inferiors” to sounding humble and equal to the jury. I’m sure this also applies when counseling clients or potential clients.
I understand the emotions of my colleagues (though perhaps not as well as Aristotle) in regard to this week’s reading assignment. It is not as easy to see the connection between pathos and rhetoric as it is between ethos or logos and rhetoric. The detailed reading on emotions was difficult to stick with. It was made even more so by the fact that Aristotle seems to characterize many emotions as opposites. Ms. Gee and Mr. Silko have already discussed why they believe that fear and confidence are not opposite emotions so I won’t delve into the reasons why I agree. I also feel as though anger and calm are not opposites. I have known those who are angry to remain very calm in the right situations. In fact the scariest of offenders is not the person who succumbs to his anger, but the one who remains calm amidst anger. This person calculates his crime in calm and “cold blood”. If there is anything women have taught me it is that they are capable of feeling many emotions all at once; including calmness and anger.
That said, several have mentioned that it is tough to see the applicability of what Aristotle has written to modern legal rhetoric. I would respond that this seeming irrelevance means we should study pathos even more diligently that ethos and logos. Mr. Chu points out with his story that many times pathos is the only aspect of rhetoric that works. Those who are not studying to become lawyers cannot be expected to rely on logic the same way that we do. My fiancée makes her judgment calls based on her emotions and not on logic. One time I posed a riddle to her that required logical deduction in order to be answered correctly. Without a second of hesitation she correctly “guessed” the answer. To this day she is convinced that because, “that seems like an honest action and someone who acts honestly can be trusted” is a logical answer to the riddle. Many of the jurors who listen to our rhetoric will couch their logic in terms of what they feel is right. It certainly seems to me as though emotion is the most important aspect of persuasion.
The picture reminds me of the store in Waco that sells both medical scrubs and wedding dresses. I guess you never know when someone might do a medical themed wedding.
I find it interesting that these chapters were some of the first written discussions of human psychology. Since modern psychology focuses so much on the understanding of oneself, I was somewhat surprised to learn that some of the first discussions on psychology came from a desire to understand others and how to best persuade others.
As for the reading itself, while I agree that an understanding of emotions may not help you in persuading a particular group, I do think that to be an effective speaker overall, it is important to understand what drives people to commit the acts (good or bad) that they do. I think understanding people helps you create the unity and the sense of community which can be vital in public speaking.
When I read through the chapter on Anger, I was reminded of a conversation that my husband and I recently had. We were talking about how we were amazed at how mad we can get at each other. Aristotle says that those in love are one of the group of people that are easily stirred to anger. Before marriage, I might not have agreed with statement. However, I have come to understand that I get mad at my husband because I love him and because of that he also has the ability to hurt my feelings easier than other people. I think it ties into Aristotle’s statement that the unexpected hurts more. We expect those that we love not to hurt us, so when they do, it hurts more and can cause greater anger.
I had a problem with the chapter on Friendliness. I agreed with what Aristotle said, but I think it is too narrow of a view. He looks at it from the standpoint of a “nice” person looking for friends. But I think that “mean” people probably have friends too. But they attract “mean” friends and probably seek out those types of people to be friends with. But maybe it’s possible that the relationship that develops isn’t a true friendship and so Aristotle is still right.
I thought the chapter on friendship was interesting, but it seemed to deal with extremes. That is, it seemed to discuss friendships in the sense that we consider “best friends,” at least for the most part. Aristotle talks about how friends “are those to whom the same things are good and bad and who have the same friends and the same enemies.” I don’t think this is necessarily true in today’s society, except for perhaps the best of friends. But I think that many people get along very well in part due to their differences. Whether it be political differences, personality differences, or some other differences, it seems to me that friendly debate has a way of blossoming friendships. I also think that differences like that can be complimentary to each other. I do, however, see how many people who are the best of friends do share the characteristics that Aristotle describes – likes for the same things, dislikes for the same things, shared friends, and shared enemies. It’s just that for more casual friends these things may not be true. I do believe that a good way to judge a good friend is to see if he does something that Aristotle describes – “doing [a favor] unasked and not advertising what has been done.” True friends do unasked favors in the interest of friendship.
The anger and hatred part was an interesting distinction. I never really thought about the difference between anger and hatred, but Aristotle is right – anger results from an event that occurs, whereas hatred may just come from a hatred towards a certain group.
I found myself agreeing with John a lot. I think emotion is the most important aspect of persuasion. Although it seems more emphasis is put on the character and perception of the speaker, I believe the balance should favor emotion. The importance of appealing to and provoking the proper emotion could not be more important in our profession.
I also found myself disagreeing with some of Aristotle’s pairings of emotion. Although this may have been done for explanatory reasons, I think it is difficult to analyze a single emotion in isolation. Emotions are complex and feelings of anger are often combined with feelings of sadness, while feelings of regret often come with feelings of motivation, etc. I think beyond logic, emotions drive the average person. We, as law students, are almost trained to set aside our emotions and evaluate things logically no matter how unnatural and improper it feels. This type of training isn’t given (or wanted) by most, and as a result, emotions reign supreme. I believe the triggering of the right emotion can provide greater results than any logical explanation. People are emotional creatures, and understanding what drives people’s emotions can go a long way.
Although the context of the reading is difficult to apply to the legal profession, I look forward to lecture to gain a better understanding of the application.
- Sameer Karim
I like what Cheryl and Drew said. I agree that the reading has generally helped me to identify emotional reasons for what I do. I can't say I disagree with the little I've understood from the reading (besides that whole habitual stuff being pleasurable). While I was reading the assignment, I began to wonder how Aristotle gained his insight. However it came to him, I like that he boiled his thoughts down to such basic statements.
I've noticed on occassion that making an opponent angry, and then fueling that anger, can give you the advantage. I think most of us lose our focus when we get angry and perform worse. It reminded me of what we did to the other teams when I played school basketball. Sometimes, though, you'd get the guy who would catch fire when he got mad.
What I like most from the reading was "The Causes of Friendship" from page 127. Doing a favor really is productive of friendship. It reminded me of something I've tried to do. A while back, I started to look for opportunities to do nice things for people that I didn't really like. It made a huge difference in the way I felt towards them. Unfortunately, I lost the motivation to continue that practice.
Once again, it has really helped me to read the comments of my classmates. I'm glad there are other people around to help me grasp everything.
Aristotle’s reflections on fear seemed very useful in civil plaintiff’s lawyer work, especially products liability and other tort cases. Fear is an effective motivator; just ask any 1Q. But fear only exists when possibility of harm is imminent. It is imperative for plaintiff’s lawyers to present harm as real and imminent. In Product Liability and Personal Injury Trial Law, we discussed the effect of reaching a juror’s “Reptile Brain.” This occurs when the lawyer convinces a juror that the defendant’s conduct could harm the juror or the juror’s loved ones in the near future if the conduct was allowed to continue. Once the Reptile Brain is reached, the juror decides he/she needs to take action to prevent this harm from occurring, which usually results in an advantageous jury finding or damages award for the plaintiff. There are different ways to reach the Reptile Brain, but all deal with conjuring up fear in the juror’s mind.
Aristotle points out that “no one is afraid if he is of those who thinks he will suffer nothing.” Applying this to personal injury law, the plaintiff should present the injured party as a typical, relatable person that was injured doing something all normal people do. This helps the juror put themselves in the plaintiff’s shoes. Combining this with the inverse of Aristotle’s discussion on confidence greatly helps the plaintiff lawyer’s argument. When people hear a person’s car wreck story, they tend to think they would have avoided the wreck because they would have acted differently than the injured driver. The plaintiff’s lawyer needs to paint the picture so that the jury understands the plaintiff did not have enough “resources” (i.e. time, space, line of sight, awareness) to avoid the collision. When the juror reflects on his/her own driving skills, they will probably be less confident that they would have escaped the wreck. “Would I be able to avoid a double-cab pick-up taking a corner at 55 mph on a two lane road?” The juror will be more likely to think that the same thing could easily happen to them.
I don’t buy into everything Ari has to say about Emulation. But its role as the flip side of Envy has some merit. The initial desire for something someone else has is as innate and, in its purist since, uncontrollable as the initial lust for someone or the initial jolt of pride for a job well done. However, it is our response to this primary instinct that determines our moralistic sense. For example, one could choose to ignore the carnal craving if indeed it would be wrong to slake the thirst; or one could rain hosannas down on others who helped in the accomplishments rather than seek more praise. Likewise in response to the envious yen, one can either simply be disdainful of the other person for what they have; or one can seek to achieve that same thing.
Whether one feels derision for the thing or the drive to achieve it, Ari seems to argue, may depend on the thing itself. If this thing is worth having, and thus good, one may feel compelled to seek it for oneself. If this thing is not worth having, either because it has no value or some “evil” value to the person, one may feel only contempt for the other that they have it. What such thing, though, would cause a person to feel only contempt for the one who has it rather than a want, if not need, to seek it. Ari mentions fortune, and by this I think he means the way by which a person comes into money, position, friends, etc. When someone wins the lottery, it’s we don’t covet the winning numbers, rather we covet the money the winner receives in return for his or her anti-prognostication skills. One cannot emulate luck, in this case picking the correct lotto numbers, by shear will of force and determination. But we can feel disdain or contempt for the person whom luck randomly smiled upon and allowed their numbers to hit on that day.
This week’s picture had me bouncing back and forth between pity and indignation. I pity a person who would actually invest the money and time necessary to run a store that sells ghost busting equipment. However, if the store generates a profit, I might feel some indignation. Their success might shift my viewpoint of the store’s owner from fellow (eccentric) person to person unworthy of success (by virtue of owning a ghost busting store). But maybe this is just envy.
I really enjoyed this week’s reading assignment and thought it was a good refresher on emotional motivation. In trial law, I think people often underestimate the value of the jury’s raw emotional state. Juries aren’t made up of legal scholars who flesh out all the subtleties of complex arguments—often they barely seem to be paying attention. However, whether consciously or not, people will remember how they felt about you, your client, and your opposition. While emotional manipulation may be second nature for many people, it never hurts to go back and reexamine outside sources for angles you might be missing. Aristotle has created a helpful pocket reference for this purpose.
I found this week’s reading assignment a little easier to read than in the previous weeks. Although Aristotle’s thorough examination of emotions seems abstract at times, it is interesting to recognize that the emotions felt by those in ancient times is still relevant today. I agree with some of my peers to a certain extent on why it is necessary to examine these emotions so thoroughly when constructing arguments, however, I also realize the extreme importance of knowing your audience and appealing to their senses and core being through the use of emotion as a persuasive tool to get the hearers to act. In the same vein, there was a specific point Aristotle made in Chapter Five about fear that reminded me of this concept found in a recently published book that my Products Liability professor talked about last quarter. Aristotle says, “The result is that whenever it is better [for a speaker’s case] that they [i.e., the members of the audience] experience fear, he should make them realize that they are liable to suffering…” My professor talked about this concept called “The Reptile,” which basically says that every person has this sense of reptile in him. As a lawyer you want the jury to feel that their inner reptile is being threatened and to act accordingly. For example, if something happened to a child and the jury has children you want them to fear that if this action by the defendant goes unpunished, this could potentially happen to their own child. As I read Aristotle, I could see how this concept could be a source of persuasion.
I also found a point Chapter 3 about calmness interesting and still holds true today. Aristotle explains that people are calm if their anger has cooled with time and is not in its first stage, for time makes anger cease. I know when someone makes me angry or mad, I don’t like that person to immediately start talking and asking me questions and trying to resolve the issue. In fact, it makes me more upset and my initial reaction is to explode. To avoid this, I would rather be alone and clear my mind and then later sit down and talk about it when my initial stages of anger stop. That way I can think clearly and speak civilly to work out the issue.
In Chapter Seven Aristotle defines kindliness. In his definition I immediately connected with what Aristotle was describing when he said that kindliness is a service to one need, not in return for anything nor that one rendering the service may get anything but as something for the recipient. Last weekend I visited my fiancé, Will, in Galveston. We went for a walk around his neighborhood, and we saw an older lady who Will seemed to know. He stopped and said hello. When I asked him about how he knew the woman who lived a few doors down from his house, he told me that the other day he was running in the neighborhood and saw this woman with her hands full struggling to get from her front door to her car with all these boxes. So, Will stopped and offered to help. He introduced himself and the two talked for a bit. As soon as he was finished packing her car, she had $10 in her hand. Will refused to take it and he told her, “Please keep your money, I wanted to help. Plus this is what neighbors do, they help each other.”
Its official. Reading Aristotle is just like reading a Warshak Ink print. This might explain why a lot of my applications of the reading are pretty shallow--right now, most of my experiences seem to be contained to classes, tests, competitions, deadlines, etc. so, when I read, “for what is far off is not feared” I thought, “maybe that is why we procrastinate for finals!”
It’s fun to try to apply much of Aristotle’s logic to a single situation. For example, in a competition, Aristotle would suggest we dislike our competition because we are angry at those we fear and we fear those who are better than us or possibly better than us because we fear inadequacy. We fear inadequacy because it leads to shame. Which is why I think Mr. Silko made such a great point—if we look to the source of our shame and rationalize it, that driving fear is much less threatening. Like he said, he was terrified of failing Contracts I and then he realized the worst thing that could happen was he take it again. The fear in that is that people will judge you. But like Aristotle says, people don’t judge those who misfortune come to. They judge and resent and feel anger towards those who place them in a position of fearing for one’s self. Lets hope I can keep that in mind for PC exercises!
The Chapter on Pity is one of the passages that have struck me so far as having the most applicability to lawyers. The reason for this is that, according to Aristotle, pitiable things include those that are “destructive, consisting of grief and pains, and things that are ruinous.” These are the same things that necessarily must be present in some form in a lawsuit (civil or criminal). After all, to have standing to bring a lawsuit a plaintiff must have injury in fact or society must have suffered some wrong at the hands of a criminal. Invoking pity towards a party to the lawsuit or the victim of a crime is a great strategy since Aristotle defines pity as in part “a certain pain at an apparently destructive or painful even happening to one who does not deserve it.” There is a short step from feeling this pain to taking action to remedy the one who is pitied.
The fact that pity is so powerful makes it absolutely necessary to place persons on the jury that can feel pity towards the client or victim of a crime. Aristotle recognizes this by devoting a section towards identifying those who feel pity. I think this section is even more applicable to American judicial argument than Athenian since we can actually pick who we want on a jury instead of trying to appeal to a mass of people. This reminds me of something I heard from a lawyer not too long ago when he advised: “A case is won or lost in voir dire.” Therefore it is essential that some jurors are people “like [the defendant, etc.] in age, in character, in habits, in rank, in birth.” This makes me see the Batson case as even more important.
Finally Aristotle adds a bit of strategy: “things are more pitiable when just having happened.” The note explains that some people would dress up in rags as in a tragedy to impart pity. So the gratuitous neck brace in court is nothing new!
Pathos is fascinating to me because I think when you strip away argument, logic, reason and rationality, an individual’s decision is ultimately predicated on their emotional response to an issue. I believe that fear is the most critical emotion articulated in Aristotle’s psychological taxonomy because it functions on such a base level.
First, I had never thought about what conjures fear: “Fear may be defined as a pain or disturbance due to a mental picture of some destructive or painful evil in the future.” When I’m afraid of something, I usually don’t stop to think “Hey, I’m afraid of something that hasn’t even happened yet and may never happen.” The more I started to think about it, the more I realized how much of my own anxiety is founded on something based on speculation and the illusory.
I do think that Aristotle left out one important aspect related to fear: it is fertile ground for the other negative emotions outlined, and our actions can flow from that. I believe it is Yoda who once said, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” If a person is sufficiently afraid, regardless of whether or not that fear is founded, there is an automatic, instinctual reflex to protect oneself. Anger, hatred, enmity, etc. are effective defense mechanisms that stem from being afraid. And as Yoda said, there is a lot of suffering that can come from that.
Of course, world history is jam packed with the consequences of skillful rhetoricians manipulating that fear-reflex into action. But I think it operates on a more mundane and subtle level as well. It colors our prejudices, who we choose to associate with, where we live and what we believe to be true about the world. Certainly there are juries out there whose verdicts have not reflected the objective facts of a case, but instead a fear-based perception of those facts. Hitting the right emotional cues with the right words can have a profound impact on the choices made by others, for better or for worse.
"I really liked the discussion about emotions this week. It could not have come at a more appropriate time. I was in Quantico, Virginia going through the last phase of my medical screening for the Marine Corps. I ran pretty much the entire gambit of what Aristotle was discussing, though I do disagree with some of the things he said about them. I agree with Kim Gee about fear not only being in the here and now, but also fear of the future. I also think that Aristotle got it wrong about confidence being the opposite of fear. I like John Wayne's take on it better: being afraid and going ahead anyway. That is confidence, and it's not the opposite of fear, but the acceptance of it and overcoming the paralysis it can harbor.
But all of this is a bit too theoretical for me to see a real way to use it in sculpting an argument. People's emotions are more complex than pure theory. I believe application would be more practical, a cold way to say it is, let's not study the emotion so much as how to manipulate them. I think a study of emotions without a study of how to mold them would be incomplete.
Aristole's analysis of emotions is thorough, but is without application. It reads more like a psychologist's description of normal human emotions, perhaps this is how you use them--learn them first and only then can you figure out how to shape your argument.
Nothing, so far, has made Aristotle more relevant to me than working through mock trial the last few months. Last night, we returned from the AAJ competition after suffering a tough loss in the finals and when i got home I started reading the assignment for today. As I was reading, I couldn't help but try and relate everything I read to things that had happened during rounds over the weekend. The quote that stood out to me the most was right at the very beginning of the reading and to me, it encapsulates such a major concept of trying cases in front of a jury. "But since rhetoric is concerned with making a judgment , it is necessary not only to look to the argument, that it may be demonstrative and persuasive, but also for the speaker to construct a view of himself as a certain kind of person and to prepare the judge; for it makes much difference in regard to persuasion that the speaker seem to be a certain kind of person and that his hearers suppose him to be disposed toward them in a certain way ." I read this passage out loud several times and for whatever reason, after this weekend, it really stuck with me and made me wonder how this very concept had impacted our case. The passage then went on to talk about the importance of the speaker's wisdom, virtue and good will. I could not agree more that these three things make all the difference for a lawyer trying the case. The truth is that while the jury will do tehir best to look at the facts and apply the law in a very technical sense, the jury is generally deciding how well they like the lawyers and the clients. Offering yourself up as a calm, reasonable, wise, and virtuous individual will make your legal arguments make more sense and really resonate with the jurors.
Aristotle has a good grasp on what really makes people tick. I think practically understanding human emotion is useful in all aspects of life. It is helpful to understand you clients, your opponents, your associates, and your witnesses. It is also important to be aware of the emotions you instill in your audience at every turn. A lawyer who batters a witness on cross examination may end up getting the jury's anger directed toward himself. Aristotle's discussion on calmness gives you a way to redirect anger and come off looking like the good guy. I also think that calmness can lead a jury to see you as a friend and someone to admire. I also found it intriguing who Aristotle thinks can be a friend. I don't think that friendship is confined to those with good moral character and are neat in appearance. However, I do see how these qualities in acquaintances make it more likely that you will behave in a friendly manner towards them. Personally I am more likely to strike up a conversation on the bus with someone who seems to be good natured and more likely to want to get to know a classmate who is not critical of others. When I read about shame it brought to mind an argument that I heard from a prosecutor once. This attorney made it seem like the juries had been making the wrong decisions and criminals were getting released and people were talking about how stupid the juries were. The prosecutor then asked the jury to think about what they wanted people saying about them. This was a blatant attempt to get the jury to find guilty for personal reasons.
I think it is important to remember how many emotions you can appeal to when making arguments to the jury. There are a lot of options on how to get a group of 12 strangers to decide in your favor. I think many lawyers make the mistake of focusing on appealing to anger or pity and ignore the other ways. It is also useful to understand the opposites of emotions to be able to counteract your opponent's arguments.
I found chapter 7, on Kindliness, to be particularly interesting. Under Aristotle's definition and examples of kindliness, or benevolence, I was instantly struck by the image that many people have of lawyers in general, which is to say that they are counter to Aristotle's definition as merely self serving, greedy and only out for their own interests.
In today's political and social climate, where tort reform is an issue that is pushed upon the American public in such a one-sided manner, I believe that it is imperative for every attorney in every case to convey not only to the jury, but also to their own client, that they posses this "Kindliness" (as Aristotle puts it).
When thinking of it in this light, that of a trial or client consultation, I think it is less of an independent trait (kindliness) and more of a piece of the whole identity of the speaker (or attorney) as being trustworthy, and therefore worthy of being listened to and relied upon. If an attorney cannot gain the trust of the jury, the jury will not find in his/her client's favor, it's that simple.
We are viewed as a extension of our clients and as such we need to represent ourselves in a manner that conveys Aristotle's "kindliness". Clearly, this is not a trait that can be feigned, people will see right through it. Therefore, it may be of great importance that in every case the lawyer chooses to take, he finds a genuine belief in his client's cause, not necessarily in the client, but certainly in what is the RIGHT and Just outcome. This belief and approach to the issue ties in many different characteristics of the trustworthy lawyer, like honesty, and truth seeking, and certainly Aristotle's "kindliness".
I, like Luke, thought the discussion of the various types of emotions was interesting but struggled in distilling a method or process that this information could be used practically in rhetorical situations.
I was also worried because I am the worst person, perhaps on the face of the earth, about remembering names, and there is a section that indicated that forgetting names was belittlement. Great, just what I need, Im unintentionally belittling people left and right.
I liked it when he made the distinction between hating certain classes and how that was permanent, and classifying people in those classes, which was a little different. I have never thought of it like that, but I think it makes complete sense and is pretty insightful.
I also like the part where he discussed how calm people invoke more fear than those who are quick tempered because you never know how and when they are going to act/react.
I also thought it was pretty insightful when Aristotle said that for fear to continue, there must be some hope of being saved from the cause of agony. That sounds like a plot of a movie or something.
While reading books such as this one, I always forget the time and place where the work was written because a lot of the concepts are pretty timeless, but it always catches me off guard when they start discussing relationships with young boys which was accepted somewhat during the time this was written.
The commentary talked about how friendliness and enmity are more closely related to, and revealing of, character than anger and calmness. This is probably true, given that Aristotle's definitions of being friendly or hateful tended to reflect deep-seated value judgments about people rather than spur-of-the-moment decisions.
I think one set of characteristics may be more useful to play on than the other, though, depending on the environment. I have been taught, through several sources, that anger is normally the most powerful emotion in the decision-making process when it's present. When there is no lasting relationship that will continue after a decision is made, using the audience's anger can be a very persuasive techinque. Some of the drawbacks associated with a decision will be eliminated because there will be no more menaningful contact with the people affected by your decision.
In circumstances where you have to live with your choices, I think you see more fo a reliance on reasoned results. This is more similar to the views expressed in Chapters 4 and 5, relying on deeper and more thorough feelings.
I found chapter four’s discussion on anger and hatred very interesting. I had never really taken the time to sit down and parse out the difference between the two emotions and just sort of lumped them together. I think it’s helpful to draw a distinction between the two. Many times as attorneys we are going to be delivering our arguments in front of hostile audiences, and understanding the degree of animosity felt towards your side will help you better craft your argument and strategy. Aristotle thought it was important to understand that anger can be cured in time; but hatred cannot. He even went on to say that the angry man may pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated. I think this might be a little extreme of a view, but the principle behind it is sound. If you have a client that people passionately hate you shouldn’t spend all your time trying to make them grow to love your client. You should instead try to mitigate the audience’s ill feelings toward your client, and explain why they are the way they are.
I also found the discussion on indignation very interesting. Aristotle says indignation is pain caused by the sight of undeserved good fortune, and that the newly rich give more offence than those whose wealth is of long standing and inherited. People can’t stand the idea of someone who is undeserving coming into a financial windfall. This feeling is the main impetus behind the tort reform movement. Understanding this concept and realizing that you have to do everything you can to make your client seem deserving of the remedy you are asking for will greatly increase your chances for success.
The very first thing I thought about during the reading and couldn't wait to write about was Aristotle's use of "pathos" in describing different types of emotions (ie. anger, fear) and how those emotions effect the speakers perception on the audience. I have asked very few questions in law school (I think that this is the only question I can actually remember asking) and it was in PC directed towards professor Powell - I asked him during an advocacy lecture how much can a defense attorney say about his relationship with the client in hopes of gaining his client some sort of credibility. I asked this because I have a feeling that some of my work will come from my high school friends getting in trouble. (Some are currently asking for my services but I still have to pass that little thing called the bar). Some of these kids are rough and I know that the jury will see that so I wanted to know if I could get up there and tell them how I came to represent them and how good a kids I know they really are. Powell said that this is actually a good tactic and should be used if you have a genuine relationship with your client. He also said that no matter how much they like you, if you don't persuade them with the fact then they will still find against your client. He told a story about a jury member telling him after a trial that he was "so sorry" for throwing the book at his client. When Powell asked why the jury member felt this way he said b/c he liked Powell so much that he felt bad about find against him. Powell said that a trial isn't just a "popularity" contest, without a well formed case the jury will find against you even though they have come to like you.
Post a Comment