JUDICIAL DEALS: COMMUNICATIVE ASPECT

Plan

1. Features of judicial speech.

2. Characteristics of the judicial audience

3. The ethics of the judicial speaker

4. Psychological and rhetorical aspects of appearing in court

1. Features of judicial speech

Judicial debate is part of the trial, in which the parties sum up the results of the conducted research of the actual circumstances of the case, analyze the evidence collected, express and justify each of their opinions on the issues to be resolved by the court.

The following persons participate in the judicial debates on the criminal case : the public prosecutor, the defense counsel, the defendant, if the case is considered without the participation of the defense counsel, as well as a civil plaintiff, a civil defendant or their representatives. In cases of private prosecution (insult, slander, beatings, causing minor bodily injury, etc.), the victim or his representative participates in the court debate as the prosecutor. Speech by public prosecutors and public defenders is allowed.

In a civil case , the claimant, the defendant, their representatives participate in the judicial debate; third parties; the prosecutor, as well as the authorized bodies of state administration and other organizations that applied to the court for the protection of the rights and legally protected interests of other persons; authorized state bodies attracted by the court to participate in the process or entered into the process on their own initiative; representatives of public organizations and labor collectives, if they are allowed to participate in legal proceedings.

Thus, the judicial debate consists of speeches of persons representing the prosecution or defense, and the judicial speech is a public speech addressed to the court, as well as to all those participating and present during the consideration of a criminal or civil case, delivered at a court hearing and representing a statement of the speaker’s conclusions on the case and his objections to other speakers.

Judicial speech should be aimed at ensuring a full, comprehensive and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case, to facilitate the issuance of a lawful, reasonable and fair sentence.

The purpose of the judicial speech is to contribute to the formation of the inner convictions of judges, to convincingly and convincingly influence the lay judges and jurors, citizens present in the courtroom.

The subject of the judicial speech is the act for which the defendant is subject to criminal or other responsibility.

The content of the judicial speech is a set of issues resolved by the court in sentencing.

The material for the judicial speech are the circumstances related to a particular criminal or civil case, facts, evidence.

A specific feature of the court speech is strict procedural regulation. For example, prosecutors and defense attorneys, the victim and the defendant participating in the judicial debate in a criminal case, make suggestions about the factual circumstances of the case, the evidence of the consequences of a crime, the legal assessment of crimes, etc., established during the judicial investigation. For professional participants in the process (prosecutor, prosecutor, defense attorney) the statement and justification of their position on these issues is a procedural obligation. In their speeches a conclusion should be made about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the legal qualification of the crime, the punishment of the defendant or release from punishment, the resolution of a civil suit, as well as other issues arising in the case. But for a defendant or for a victim of private prosecution, speaking in court is a right that they can use or not.

A civil claimant, a civil defendant or their representatives may address in their speeches only issues related to the resolution of a civil claim.

Judicial debate in a jury trial is also subject to a certain order. They are divided into two parts: in the first, the participants, including the victim, speak only on the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If the defendant is found guilty, issues relating to the determination of the measure of punishment are discussed.

When considering a civil case, the prosecutor, lawyers, and legal advisers are obliged to rely on the legal norms that govern the resulting legal relations.

In both criminal and civil cases, participants in the court debate are not entitled to rely on evidence that was not considered at the court hearing or was declared inadmissible by the court. If it becomes necessary to present new evidence, they may apply for a resumption of the judicial investigation.

The sequence of speeches is determined by the court. The duration of the judicial debate is not limited to a specific time, but the presiding judge may stop the speakers if they relate to circumstances that are not relevant to the case.

The peculiarity of the judicial speech is its adversarial nature. The prosecution and defense on an equal basis defend their point of view before the court. The principle of competition is the most important principle of legal proceedings, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It assumes: 1) the separation of the functions of the prosecution and defense from the function of justice and their separation between them; 2) vesting the parties with equal procedural rights for the exercise of their functions; 3) the governing position of the court in the process and giving only the court the right to decide on the case.

The controversial nature of the judicial debate helps the court comprehensively and objectively analyze all the circumstances of the case, make an informed, informed decision and issue a fair verdict.

In order to have the desired effect on the judges and other participants in the process, the judicial speech must necessarily be evidence-based and convincing, contain reasonable conclusions on issues that are properly resolved by the court.

Speeches of prosecutors and defenders are primarily evaluative in nature and differ in moral and legal orientation.

The speakers consider the motives, the causes of the crime, the actions of the defendant, all the evidence in the case, guided by the rules of law, give a legal qualification of the crime.

Judicial speeches are called upon to play an important educational role, especially when a court session is held with open doors, and the case in question is socially significant. It is very important to show those present in the courtroom the public danger of the crime committed, instill a sense of respect for the law and the rule of law.

It should always be remembered that the courtroom is the laboratory where public opinion is formed. A. F. Koni wrote that " figures of the judicial competition should not forget that the court, in a certain respect, is a school for the people, from which, apart from respect for the law, should be taken lessons in serving the truth and respect for human dignity ."

It should also be borne in mind that judicial speech, as the researchers rightly point out, is not just a criminal or civil procedural act, but a creative process that requires the speaker not only legal knowledge, but also the possession of rhetorical skills hard work on yourself.

“He will be eloquent,” Cicero asserted, “who on the forum and in civil proceedings will speak in such a way that he will convince, delight, subjugate the listener. Persuasion is a necessity, pleasure depends on the pleasantness of speech, in the submission of the listener - victory . ”

2. Characteristics of the judicial audience

“ We can view the courtroom as a social world in a miniature, in which everyday social processes are intensified and have the most serious consequences for all participants,” writes well-known American social psychologist D. Myers. “Here, as elsewhere, people reflect on the opinions of others and influence each other .”

The audience in which the judicial speaker has to speak is very diverse in its composition and functional roles. It includes the following groups:

- professional participants of the process (prosecutor, lawyer, participating in the consideration of the case by virtue of their professional and procedural duties);

- people's assessors (citizens of the Russian Federation elected in accordance with the law to participate in the administration of justice by the courts of first instance in criminal and civil cases. They are elected at enterprises and organizations by open voting. People's assessors participate in criminal proceedings when punishment is possible for more than 5 years and does not exceed 15 years of imprisonment, as well as in all cases involving minors. Most civil cases, “if the parties do not object to this”, are considered by the judge alone without with the creation of a system of arbitration courts, they began experimentally to introduce the institution of arbitration assessors, which include persons competent in the consideration of economic disputes);

- jurors (citizens of the Russian Federation included in the lists of jurors and called upon to participate in court proceedings in accordance with the procedure established by law. Lists of jurors are prepared by the regional, regional, district, city administration and published in the local press. Jurors form a jury of 12 people In the conference room, without the participation of a professional judge, they decide for themselves (the verdict) only on the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and also on whether or not whether he does not deserve condescension);

- representatives of the public (public prosecutor, public defender, representatives of public organizations and labor collectives, performing public duties in court);

- other participants in the process (defendant, victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, witnesses, experts, specialists who defend their interests or provide assistance in the consideration of the case, performing the procedural duties assigned to them by law);

- relatives, relatives, friends of the defendant and the victim, interested in the outcome of the case;

- the public (persons who came to court for various reasons. This may be a professional interest, concern with social problems, curiosity, etc.).

Each group performs its procedural duties or plays certain functional roles.

The presence of different addressees in the courtroom significantly complicates the activities of the speaker, obliges him to carefully think through his speech, select the appropriate language tools, and use special methods of influencing listeners. His speech should be, on the one hand, sufficiently professional, reflect the legal subtleties of the case, and on the other hand, be understandable even to the most inexperienced listener.

In addition, it should be borne in mind that those in the courtroom are two opposing camps - the prosecution and the defense. Each party seeks to influence the judges, the people, the jury and the other party to achieve the desired result. Therefore, the courtroom is often called the battlefield for the minds. All participants in the judicial debate in varying degrees are also under the pressure of public opinion, guided by the socio-political and moral attitudes of society.

The complex process of interaction between all groups of the judicial audience can be represented schematically (Fig.).

3. The ethics of the judicial speaker

The position of a lawyer, including a judicial speaker, in terms of ethical conditions of activity is not easy. Often he is in the center of the contradiction of law and morality.

Morality and law perform a general social function: they regulate people's behavior. Both morality and law represent a set of relatively stable norms (rules, regulations), reflecting the general idea of ​​what is just and proper. However, the requirements of the law, as is known, are not always consistent with the requirements of morality.

Develop legal norms of state bodies or public structures with the consent of the state. Introduce the same legal norms, can only be changed or canceled by the state. And morality arises and is formed spontaneously among the masses as a product of the social life of society. Moral has absorbed thousands of years of experience of generations of people in their struggle for survival. Therefore, morality is the basis of law, and not vice versa. Moral norms do not need the sanction of the authorities, it is enough that they are accepted by those people (groups, corporations, classes) who recognize them and intend to be guided by them.

Law and morality differ in their methods of security. Legal provisions are unconditional, binding. Violation or non-observance of these norms is punished and punished by the state. Morals have a different status. Their observance is determined by the sense of conscience of the subject, personal convictions and public opinion. Violation of these norms is not prosecuted by law, but public, group, corporate condemnation is often more effective than the threat of legal sanctions. “The autotitude of moral laws is infinitely higher ” (Hegel), and the scope of their application is wider than legal ones. The right cannot require a person to be decent, fair, honest, generous, courageous, perform feats, etc., as is characteristic of morality. But it formalizes and regulates the procedures of business processes, optimizes them, makes them more correct and productive. Morality and law complement each other. Moral in a certain measure determines (determines, conditions) the behavior of a member of society, and the law regulates it.

There are also significant contradictions between law and morality, which should be taken into account in social and legal practice. “Moral and legal requirements are not always and not entirely consistent, and often directly oppose each other <...> the optimal combination of ethical and legal has always been a difficult problem in all legal systems. And, as experience shows, ideal harmony is usually not achieved here - contradictions inevitably persist, new ones arise, old ones get worse ”(from a textbook on the theory of state and law).

The contradictions of law and morality reflect the dialectical contradictions of the life of society. It should be noted that the right for all members of society is the same for all, while the society is very diverse, especially the modern Russian. We have different nationalities, different confessions, different lifestyles, different legal and ethical consciousness. Some peoples of Russia in the recent past generally did not have statehood, lived by tribal communities and tribes. To bring such a conglomerate under one law is very difficult.

Conflicts with the Law are inevitable. A characteristic feature of the legal law is that it is situationally specified and strictly stipulated, and life is characterized by an infinite variety of situations arising in it, sometimes fantastic and unpredictable. As L. Ye. Vladimirov rightly wrote, “ there are two truths in a criminal case, strange as it may sound: legal truth and truth of life ”. Curiosities happen when the law is on the side of justice. And since the execution of a legal law is necessary, and moral is not necessarily, injustice sometimes triumphs. There is even a concept of “abuse of the law.” Businessmen, dishonest politicians, officials, dishonest lawyers often use this cynically for mercenary purposes.

Moral sense is universal because it is guided by principle, and not by formal prescription. This is the superiority of moral orientation over the legal. The discrepancy between law and morality also occurs because law and morality are differently oriented. The moral imperative (unconditional demand, command) is a strategic preservation of society, which was formed in humans, probably very long ago, tested in the struggle for the existence of thousands of generations and is transmitted genetically, but the law is usually formed under the influence of current circumstances, taking into account the experience of the foreseeable past. The future is difficult to predict, so the law cannot reliably foresee it.

Known ascribed to Ferdinand I, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the saying “May justice be done, at least peace be lost,” which indicates the conflict of justice with life. For justice, it is important to exercise justice today, it does not look into the future and does not take into account what this will lead to. Such a setup resents our moral sense, because it is above the rule of law and looks further. But it is impossible to reject the right, it is necessary to fulfill its requirements, as the right protects life, and its elimination will inevitably lead to the disintegration of society.

Не вдаваясь в анализ причин, подчеркнем, что существует немало примеров появления антигуманных законов, игнорирующих нормальную человеческую мораль или даже враждебную ей. Эти законы обычно порождаются экстремистскими социальными режимами, проповедующими фашизм, религиозный фанатизм, войну. Однако они, как правило, не приживаются надолго и уходят обычно с законодателями, их принявшими. Гуманные, демократические законы, напротив, отличаются гораздо большей жизнеспособностью и стабильностью. Их социальное поле все время расширяется. Например, Билль о правах человека, принятый в Великобритании еще в 1689 году, не уходит из социальной жизни, и количество его приверженцев неукоснительно увеличивается.

Нельзя забывать также, что ценностные установки российского общества в последние годы динамично меняются. Раньше многие нравственные проблемы решались на основании всем известного принципа: нравственно то, что служит делу революции, делу строительства коммунизма. На этом фундаменте строилась вся система ценностей и деятельностных ориентиров.

Сегодня, когда прежняя воодушевляющая идея исчезла, когда идет коренная ломка социально-экономических отношений, меняются функции государства и направление его политики, когда общество стратифицируется, происходит кардинальное переосмысление понимания общественного долга, моральной ответственности личности и других моральных ценностей.

Как утверждают социологи, в России сейчас господствует моральный плюрализм. Каждая личность имеет свою более или менее определенную систему нравственных ценностей, свой моральный кодекс, который и определяет конкретную линию поведения, в том числе и речевого.

По мнению исследователей, это тревожный фактор для общественного развития. Моральный плюрализм может привести к моральной неразборчивости, стать серьезным барьером для установления нормальных взаимоотношений при обсуждении и решении тех или иных вопросов.

В этих условиях важное значение приобретает профессиональная этика, под которой принято подразумевать требования нравственности, связанные со специфическими условиями деятельности определенной профессии. Профессиональная этика устанавливает этические принципы и нормы взаимоотношений между членами профессиональной группы, а также с теми, с кем она взаимодействует. Профессиональная этика не вырабатывает новых моральных принципов и установок, а приспосабливает существующие к специфическим условиям определенной профессии.

Одним из разделов профессиональной этики юристов является судебная этика, представляющая собой учение о нравственных идеалах, принципах и нормах осуществления правосудия, определяющих нравственное содержание деятельности участников судопроизводства.

Certain provisions of judicial ethics are reflected in the legislator. For example, in October 1993, the Code of Honor of the judges of the Russian Federation was adopted. The Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" contains the text of the oath of an employee of the prosecutor's office. Article 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the text of the oath of jurors, etc.

Consider what ethical norms govern the behavior of a speaker in the judicial debate. The most important requirement for a judicial speaker is respectful and conscientious attitude to the court. The speaker must have a clear moral position - the court should not be misled, deceived, the court must be obeyed. For example, the prosecutor does not have the right to always and under any circumstances accuse at all costs. The law and professional ethics require the prosecutor to drop the charge if it has not been confirmed at the court investigation.

Example

The popular lawyer S. L. Aria tells about one of these “specialists” in his book “Mosaic”. His colleague, lawyer Sh., According to the author, was a cynical and cheerful cheat, who was distinguished by unique tricks in the field of justice. Once Sh. Defended the head of the workshop Zaitsev, who was accused of any abuse in the service. The court of first instance gave him 5 years of imprisonment, but he did not take him into custody, he left him on a subscription until his appeal. Zaitsev suffered from something like radiculitis or another disease of the legs, and therefore was partly chrome, which was a reference in the case. However, Sh. Decided to add to this help a small psychological study. He ordered Zaitsev to appear for consideration of the case with two crutches, but not new ones. Moreover, he explained to him exactly how to walk on crutches. Therefore, in the office Nikitchenko, who led the meeting of the special board,Zaitsev, who considered this case, did not enter, but, as it were, crawled, leaning only on his feet and dragging both legs along behind him. So he crawled to the couch and collapsed on it. The lawyer silently walked behind.

With astonishment, Nikitchenko, raising his glasses on his forehead, watched the cripple. After a brief speech by Sh., Who was calling out to the humanity of the judges, and a five-minute meeting, the special board announced the definition: the punishment to Zaitsev was replaced by a conditional one.

With tears of gratitude in his eyes, Zaitsev crawled into the corridor in the same way, where he warmly said goodbye to his lawyer, and he left. This was an oversight on his part: Zaitsev went to the toilet at the end of the corridor, where he left his crutches for joy. In the evening they were found there by a cleaner, and the authorities began to find out who and why could leave them there. Soon the picture became clear. Nikitchenko was furious. The unethical behavior of attorney Sh. Was reported to the Presidium of the Bar. And although Sh. Indignantly rejected his involvement in the court fraud, he was reprimanded. This case further confirmed his reputation as an unscrupulous servant of Themis.

В заключение подчеркнем, что судебные ораторы должны опираться на нравственные принципы, лежащие в основе профессиональной деятельности юриста: честность, компетентность, порядочность.

4. Психолого-риторические аспекты выступления в суде

В судебном доказывании нет четкой грани между вероятностью и достоверностью, а достоверность может быть представлена как очень высокая степень вероятности.

Действительно, расследуемое преступление является событием прошлого. Истина по делу устанавливается опосредованным путем: собираются различного рода улики, моделируется картина происшедшего, составляются психологические портреты причастных к делу лиц, выдвигаются и проверяются возможные версии и т. д. Поэтому многие доказательства, собранные в ходе расследования, носят вероятностный характер.

Estimation of the degree of probability / reliability of evidence is a very complicated, problematic matter. There is no universal method, algorithm for performing this procedure that is suitable for all cases of proof, and it is unlikely that they will ever be created. Although attempts to formalize the assessment of evidence are known in history, they were rejected due to the large number of errors. Therefore, today in the whole world inner conviction is the basis for evaluating evidence.

Однако следует иметь в виду, что внутреннее убеждение во многом зависит от интеллектуального и эмоционального потенциала индивида, его уровня образованности, правосознания, способности аналитически мыслить, жизненного опыта, знания менталитета, нравов и обычаев людей разных социальных слоев и т. д., а оценка достоверности и достаточности доказательств содержит существенную долюсубъективности.

Когда доказательства неоднозначны, участники судебного процесса склонны интерпретировать их в соответствии со своими порой предвзятыми мнениями. Поэтому важнейшим фактором, влияющим на юридический исход дела. становится убеждение. Решение суда может зависеть от того, какая из сторон выступила более убедительно. А это определяется не только содержанием сказанного, не только безупречной логикой говорящего.

Из судебной практики известно о том, что судебный оратор, используя только логические методы, не всегда может добиться желаемого результата. Доказать и убедить — это разные понятия, хотя и тесно связанные друг с другом. Доказать — значит установить истинность какого-либо положения, а убедить — это создать впечатление, вселить уверенность, что истинность тезиса доказана, сделать слушателя единомышленником, соучастником своих замыслов и действий.

Большое влияние на процесс убеждающего воздействия оказывают различного рода психолого-риторические технологии.

Как показывают исследования современных ученых, некоторая информационно-словесная избыточность в речи необходима. Она гарантирует понимание речи; помогает присяжным и судьям усваивать всю заложенную в ней информацию, влияющую на формирование их внутреннего убеждения по вопросам о виновности. Следовательно, судебная речь должна быть достаточно продолжительной, чтобы обеспечить необходимое убеждающее воздействие. А вот определить меру этой достаточной продолжительности должен сам судебный оратор. Для этого ему необходимо внимательно наблюдать, как воспринимают его речьслушатели, как они относятся к его доводам. Если оратор начинает замечать, что слушатели часто отвлекаются, смотрят по сторонам, разговаривают, зевают, присяжные барабанят пальцами по столу и т. п., значит, они устали, их внимание утомленно и дальнейшее затягивание речи может оказать негативное влияние.

In overseas practical case management guidelines, speakers are advised to use effective audio-visual, graphic, and other supporting materials when presenting evidence in a case. The audio recording of the crucial conversation, the photograph of the injuries inflicted, the crime scheme, etc., attract attention, make the evidence memorable, and therefore have the greatest impact.