Sentence in the argumentative discourse of criminal proceedings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17308/law/1995-5502/2023/4/270-281Keywords:
sentence, evaluation of evidence, motivation of court findings, argumentationAbstract
This paper addresses the issues of substantiation by the court of its conclusions of the sentence. The article discusses certain aspects of the content of the descriptive and motivational part of the sentence, its functional and semantic features. The article investigates the logical and linguistic methods, with the help of which the justification of the conclusions of the court is carried out. The author emphasizes that the appeal to the theory of argumentation enriches the legal understanding of the reasonableness of a judicial act.
Downloads
References
Aleksandrov A. S. Introduction to forensic linguistics. N. Novgorod, 2003. 420 p.
Alekseev A. P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. Moscow : Moscow University Publishing House, 1991. 150 p.
Astafiev A. Yu. Analysis of contradictions in the evidence in the verdict of the court // Russian Journal of Legal Research 2023. Vol. 10, no. 2. P. 65–72
Astafiev A. Yu. Evaluation of evidence in the structure of judicial argumentation in the verdict // Russian Journal of Legal Research. 2022. No. 2. P. 75–80.
Astafiev A. Yu. On the argumentative essence of the sentence // Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series : Law. 2022. No. 3. P. 274–285.
Balanovsky V. V. The role of transcendental reflection in the implementation of the ability of judgment by judges // Legal Research. 2020. No. 12. P. 31–43.
Bryushinkin V. N. Argumentation, communication, rationality // Bulletin of the Baltic Federal University. I. Kant. Series : Humanities and social sciences. 2008. No. 6. Р. 5–11.
Bryushinkin V. N. Cognitive approach to argumentation // RATIONA.ru. 2009. No. 2. Р. 2–22.
Bryushinkin V. N. Generalized system model of argumentation // Argumentation and Interpretations. Studies in Logic, History of Philosophy and Social Psychology: collection of Scientific Articles. Kaliningrad, 2006. Р 1–17.
Bryushinkin V. N. System model of argumentation // Transcendental Anthropology and Logic: Proceedings of the International Seminar "Anthropoology from a Modern Point of View" and VIII Kant Readings. Kaliningrad, 2000. Р. 133–155.
Chernyak A. Argument and Epistemic Relativism // Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2012. No. 3. P. 68–83.
Chirninov A. M. Constitutional-judicial argumentation and models of transformation of legal regulation // Law and Politics. 2021. No. 9. Р. 39–57.
Karpovich V. N. Formal logic, rhetoric and rational argumentation // Siberian Philosophical Journal. 2019. No. 17 (1). P. 5–16.
Khlebnikov A. V. The logic of judicial acts on disputes from labor relations // Vestn. Tom. state university. 2008. No. 312. Р. 122–125.
Kondakov N. I. Logic dictionary. Moscow, 1971. S. 49.
Kyrkunova L. G. Offi cial business texts in terms of functional and semantic types of speech : cand. philol. sci. diss. abstr. Perm, 2007. 19 p.
Lisanyuk E. N. Argumentation and following the rule // L. Wittgenstein : pro et contra : The personality and heritage of L. Wittgenstein in the assessments of Russian researchers : an anthology. St. Petersburg, 2017. Р. 525–552.
Lisanyuk E. N. Models of argumentation, reasoning and persuasion // RATIO.ru. 2016. No. 17 (2). Р. 35–68.
Lukashevich S. V. Topic as a way to create argumentation in legal texts : cand. philol. sci. diss. Moscow, 2004. 247 p.
Migunov A. I. Logic, argumentation, dialectics, rhetoric: connotations and correlations // Logical and philosophical studies. 2016. Vol. 14. Р. 184–201.
Migunov A. I. Several remarks on the specifi cs of the section of logical knowledge called "argumentation theory" // RATIO.ru. 2009. No. 1. P. 9–21.
Plato. Essays in three volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow : Thought, 1970. 609 p.
Pronina M. P. Legal reasoning and its use in the process of proof in civil cases // Legal technique. 2013. No. 7-1. Р. 295–298.
Savchuk T. N. Argumentation in the discourse of the humanities (on the basis of Russian and Belarusian texts) : dr. philol. sci. diss. abstr. Minsk, 2019. 46 p.
Soboleva A. K. Topeka and argumentation in legal texts (based on the texts of court decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Supreme Court of the United States): cand. philol. sci. diss. Moscow, 1998. 182 p.
Sushentsova T. V. Structural and content specificity of argumentation in court decisions : cand. philol. sci. diss. Tver, 2015. 188 p.
Tulmin. The Uses of Argument. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006. 247 p.
Vasiliev L. G., Kasyanova Yu. I. Argument and its structural interpretation // Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Series : History and Philology. 2012. No. 4. P. 119–123.
Williams S. The meaning of what was said: What American judges think about when they write court decisions // Comparative Constitutional Review. 2005. No. 3. Р. 33–44.
