The English paper!

[agentrosecotton]

...so I had all these grand plans to start up my livejournal again and get back into the community and make icons and things. I even re-downloaded the image program I used back in the day and started writing fanfiction to post to a community

Comments

[spotts1701]

A prosecutor in a murder case might use “murderer”, “death-dealer,” or “butcher” to refer to the accused

The first one - yes. The second two - only if he wants a mistrial and to be brought up before the state Bar for prosecutorial misconduct.

Sorry, being nitpicky.

[agentrosecotton]

No, that's exactly the kind of thing I want. Thank you.

[agentrosecotton]

What about "slayer", "executioner", etc.? What could I use instead?

[spotts1701]

A prosecutor can call the defendant a "murderer". He can refer to him as a "killer". But in general, it's preferred that a prosecutor stick to the facts (say, pointing out that defendant knows things that only the killer would know).

Jack McCoy walks the very fine line between zealous action and improper behavior. Sometimes he crosses it, but is never called on it, because it makes for better drama.

[agentrosecotton]

Hmm. So basically you're saying there are already provisions in place to avoid loaded language. I didn't know that... I'll revise that bit.

I've noticed that. My entire Honours Comp class is based on episodes of the original Law & Order series. While I personally would have chosen a different series ::cough::criminalminds::cough:: I have come to appreciate how well-done the show is and how appropriate its literary themes are to an English class.

[spotts1701]

Yeah - it's Rule 3.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (which most states use to regulate the legal profession):

"[A lawyer shall not] allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused"

[agentrosecotton]

Makes sense. It doesn't really cover use of certain kinds of more subtle emotive terms, though. I guess there's no real way to regulate that...but perhaps more attention should be paid. It really bothers me how some courtrooms become circuses.