This past summer, I worked as an intern with the Fairfax County Police Department.  During my time with the Department, I was able to experience numerous trials, appeals, and other events in the court rooms.  What stuck out to me most were the arguments presented by the prosecutors and defense attorneys.  Each side presented their own form of the truth.  The arresting officer stated what the defendant was charged with and the prosecutor presented the evidence, witnesses, and in some cases, experts on the matter.  The defense attorney countered with their own stories, witnesses, and maybe even experts, but more often than not there was never a clear cut answer.  Both sides seemed to be telling a different story.  I wondered why the judge considered the defense’s argument as important as the prosecutor’s.  I was bothered by the fact that sometimes guilty people walk free and innocent people are locked away in jails and prisons all because of how well their lawyers present a case.  It seemed that if you’re guilty of a crime, you should hire the best lawyer available.  The truth and the good of society appear less important than your personal freedom, so the focus in today’s courtrooms seems selfish.  It was not until I enrolled in this Rhetorical Traditions course that I understood there are multiple “truths”.  I came to know the information in this paper through my internship experience, reading of Herrick’s chapter “The Origins and Early History of Rhetoric”, and through our in-class discussions.

In Ancient Greece, Plato and many other Greeks believed that there is one Absolute Truth that comes from the gods.  The good of the Polis was central and people represented themselves in judicial hearings.  In a court session in Ancient Greece, one side would present their case and then the other side would present theirs.  Each side would tell their side of the truth to the best of their ability using invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery.  Those who were able to speak well were more likely to convince the jury, which consisted of about 100 officials.  Those citizens knew what they were speaking about, how to arrange their argument, the most persuasive words to use, and delivered it smoothly.  After both sides had the opportunity to speak, the jury would decide which was correct.  If the good of the Polis was central to the Greeks’ way of life, was that also true for the court system?  I wonder if, like today, people acted selfishly in order to preserve their own freedom.

In the court of law today, the truth is whatever is most compelling to the jury.  This bothers me because in some cases, guilty defendants are found not guilty.  The main focus of each lawyer is to convince others of their truth through formulating a speech that is adapted to the specific jury audience, providing examples in the form of evidence and witnesses, and speaking well by practicing their pitch.

Today, in my experience, lawyers spend many years studying law and are able to persuade based on technicalities, loop holes, credentials, and sometimes the truth.  They are also capable of understanding and anticipating the actions of the opposition.  Aristotle would approve of this type of rhetoric because he believed strongly in knowing both sides of an argument.  The most persuasive argument, however, remains the truth as long as it is supported by evidence.  The question to ask of today’s judicial rhetoric is if the focus is still on what is best for society or if it has shifted to a more selfish, personal focus.  Although there are many differences between the judicial rhetoric of Ancient Greece and today’s society, there are a few similarities.

The Ancient Greek citizens could influence the creation or amendment of laws in the Polis if they were able to speak well and provide a convincing argument.  Today, we elect officials who convince us that they are worthy of our support.  These officials represent our opinions and ensure our voices are heard by higher powers in our federal government.  The elected officials have a great impact on the creation and amendment of our laws.  These laws, in turn, govern society’s behavior and are the backbone of our judicial system.  In both democracies, the citizens hold the power to influence policies that are used in the court systems.