How Euphemisms Improve Your Briefs Some lawyers, particularly in their writing, use phrases guaranteed to antagonize opposing counsel: Louis Landlord failed to take any steps to improve the safety of the stairway. Polly Plaintiff lied about her use of the data.
Full Answer
· “Euphemisms are frequently used…in order to avoid troublesome terms and phrases which possibly refer to something unpleasant or embarrassing,” wrote Sebastian Taugerbeck of Germany’s Universität Siegen in a paper entitled Military Euphemisms in Media Coverage. “Euphemisms are also used frequently by governmental institutions—especially by …
· In the immigration debate, the euphemism treadmill can sometimes run in reverse and actually make political language harsher. This “c …
· Euphemisms. Euphemisms are sneaky. When propagandists use glittering generalities and name-calling symbols, they hope to arouse their audience with vivid, emotionally suggestive words. At other times, the propagandist seeks to pacify the audience by making an unpleasant reality more palatable. They do this by using bland and inoffensive words ...
Attorney-client privilege. This is where the thorniest ethical issues can start. Communication between the defense lawyer and the accused is guaranteed confidentiality. The lawyer can’t reveal any information communicated; the court can’t demand its release. That includes even a private admission by the defendant that yes, they are guilty ...
Examples of Euphemisms in Everyday Language She's not sick; she's “under the weather.” He's not a liar; he's “creative with the truth.” They're not in a sexual relationship; they're “friends with benefits.” People don't go to prison; it's a “correctional facility.” He's not poor; he's “economically disadvantaged.”
If you're uninitiated, jargon can sound like an entirely different language, and that's especially true for lawyer jargon. Not only is law already a notoriously complicated field that requires years of schooling to master, but lawyer jargon is often quite literally in a different language.
The term attorney is an abbreviated form of the formal title 'attorney at law'. An attorney is someone who is not only trained and educated in law, but also practices it in court. A basic definition of an attorney is someone who acts as a practitioner in a court of law.
You're such a brilliant lawyer. I am so grateful for your passion, dedication, and professionalism. I've hired lawyers before, but you are truly the best I've ever worked with. Thank you so much!
They read the written rulings from the old cases and use them to guide their decisions in the current ones. This helps to bring predictability and consistency to the law. It also makes it easier for lawyers to predict the outcome of similar cases they are handling for clients.
One of the reasons the law is often written in complicated or hard-to-understand language is because of the way law develops. In the United States, we use something called stare decisis. (That's pronounced starry de-sigh-sis.) Stare decisis means that we look at past cases to help us interpret the law today.
In the United States, you address a woman who is an attorney the same way you would address a man who is an attorney in the same position. The only substantive difference is the courtesy title of “Ms.” or “Mrs.” rather than “Mr.” Know Your Laws.
Bankruptcy Lawyer. Bankruptcy lawyers are experts in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and handle insolvency issues for individuals or corporations. ... Business Lawyer (Corporate Lawyer) ... Constitutional Lawyer. ... Criminal Defense Lawyer. ... Employment and Labor Lawyer. ... 6. Entertainment Lawyer. ... Estate Planning Lawyer. ... Family Lawyer.More items...
A criminal defence attorney is responsible for putting together an effective defence and developing a winning strategy for their clients. As the accused's advocate and drafter, he must prepare, file, and argue on their behalf. Negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecution is part of a lawyer's job description.
Why are lawyers so good at sex? Lawyers are confident, dominant, and even intimidating. While these are good qualities to have in the courtroom as well as in bed, good attorneys possess other qualities that make them exceptional lovers. They are innovative inventive and most importantly good listeners.
How To Date A Lawyer?When they cancel dates, show support. Often, lawyers are required to work late into the evening, sometimes without warning. ... When dates fall through, have a backup plan. ... Make them feel surprised at work. ... Plan fun outings for the weekend. ... Participate in their formal parties.
Listening to your clients, listening to witnesses, listening to your opposing counsel, and listening to the court can be the difference between winning and losing a case. Great lawyers take in all relevant information, analyze it, and create a plan of action.
Euphemisms can be used for the benefit of others without causing harm in many cases. For example, to be polite when speaking to a person grieving the recent loss of a loved one, the term "passed away" in place ...
Euphemisms can also make difficult conversations less awkward. Author Ralph Keyes touches on this: Civilized discourse would be impossible without recourse to indirection. Euphemisms give us tools to discuss touchy subjects without having to spell out what it is we're discussing (Keyes 2010).
Euphemisms to Spin. Euphemism is often considered a form of spin, used most notably by politicians, bureaucrats, and advertisers to pass something—an idea, policy, or product—off as attractive through disingenuous means.
Euphemisms manipulate the meaning of a word or phrase to make them appear more pleasant. Because the purpose of euphemism is to disguise semantics and avoid saying what is meant, it has been called "the language of evasion, hypocrisy, prudery, and deceit," (Holder 2008).
A grotesque euphemism is offensive because we recognize perfectly well the mismatch between the word and its referent, not because of the topic itself. Euphemism is an instrument of evasion, like a speeding getaway car, not an instrument of unconsciousness, like a blackjack (Gopnik 2014).
To speak euphemistically is to use language as a shield against the feared, the disliked, or the unpleasant. At their best, euphemisms avoid being offensive and have polite connotations. At the least, euphemisms seek to avoid too many negative connotations.
Not all euphemisms are inherently dishonest as they can sometimes protect against valid harm, but it is often the case that they greatly alter the direction of a conversation and inhibit clear communication. Euphemisms come in many shapes and sizes and should only be used thoughtfully.
Some military euphemisms are designed to lessen the moral impact of mistakes, like ‘friendly fire’ or ‘blue on blue’ for same-side attacks that wound or kill allied soldiers . The phenomenon is a relatively recent product of more remote, industrialized warfare and, assuredly, there is nothing friendly about it.
William J. Astore, a retired U.S. air force lieutenant-colonel, wrote for The Nation. “Such euphemisms are meant to take the sting out of America’s wars back home. Many of these words and phrases are already so well-known and well-worn that no one thinks twice about them anymore.”.
Unscrupulous forces have, in recent decades especially, used innocent civilians and facilities such as schools and hospitals as ‘human shields,’ for self-protection and, when that does not work and civilians are killed, for propaganda purposes.
War is laced with jargon, euphemisms, acronyms and outright lies, much of it designed to smooth over or lessen the impact of what is actually going on. “Euphemisms are frequently used…in order to avoid troublesome terms and phrases which possibly refer to something unpleasant or embarrassing,” wrote Sebastian Taugerbeck ...
When things are not going well and public opinion turns against an administration’s wartime policies, it orders a troop ‘drawdown,’ which was once considered a ‘withdrawal’ which, in turn, was a substitute for ‘retreat.’
Rwandan African Union peacekeepers detain a suspect in the Central African Republic in 2014.
Euphemisms can help legitimize otherwise prejudiced rhetoric. Consider “extreme vetting”, a phrase that has been referred to as a euphemismfor “discrimination against Muslims.” Using this particular euphemism helps one accomplish two goals. First, it helps separate oneself from blatant discrimination based on religion or national origin, which is important because prior research in political science has shown that people are increasingly sensitive to social desirabilityand so are unwilling to express bluntly prejudiced beliefs since it has become less socially acceptable to do so. Thus, masking such prejudice under a neutral euphemism is rather useful in that regard. Second, it still conveys the overall message of hostility to the audience that is receptive to such rhetoric – also known as a dog whistle. Therefore, you can indicate your own beliefs and connect the audience with similar beliefs without coming across as being bluntly prejudiced.
An underexplored possibility is how euphemisms and frames affect political debate by spreading confusion. People accustomed to the term “illegal immigrant” to describe foreign-born persons who are currently unlawfully residing in the United States might initially fail to react as negatively to the term “undocumented immigrant” merely because they don’t know what it means. As soon as they know what it means, however, the negative feelings they associate with “illegal immigrant” would probably attach to the term “illegal alien.” Another is how euphemisms build walls around political tribes and prevent them from talking to each other, thus deepening policy divisions that prevent middle-ground solutions.
Euphemisms as primes are particularly meaningful for citizens who are ambivalent about immigration. Consider a relatively more liberal person who is undecided on immigration. By encountering a random piece of news that uses “undocumented immigrants” instead of “illegal aliens,” an ambivalent voter is more likely to form a pro-immigration bias at a rather early stage because of his greater innate support for fairness, which is offended by the unequal distribution of documents. Whereas a relatively more conservative person who is undecided about immigration is far more likely to be swayed by the term “illegal alien”, because of their greater support for order and structure, which is offended by illegality.
As Pinker explains, people’s feelings toward the replaced term are merely transferred to the euphemism because we all have concepts that we use words to describe but we don’t use words to invent new concepts. The concept-to-word cognitive production process only affects the sound of the output, not its meaning.
An important effect of threat frame euphemisms is that they can dehumanize and attach negative attitudes to certain groups. Consider the euphemisms “anchor baby” and “catch and release.” “Anchor baby” stands for children born to foreign nationals who are in violation of their immigration status while on U.S. soil.
Framing can steer public opinion in opposite directions of the political spectrum. The “undocumented immigrant” frame will invoke different beliefs from the “illegal alien” frame. Specifically, the former is describing the issue as a bureaucratic government problem afflicting ordinary immigrants. The latter frames it as a law and order problem with foreign nationals. These two euphemisms, although meant to represent the same concept, do so in different ways that convey different messages and will pull the receivers of the frames in different directions. Most people feel sympathy toward those caught up in a cruel bureaucratic morass but are much less sympathetic to lawbreakers.
Political debate in the modern world is impossible without memorizing a list of euphemisms, and there is no shortage of public opprobrium for those who talk about certain topics without using them. In addition to the many euphemisms that are accepted by virtually everybody, the political left has its own set of euphemismsassociated ...
To ensure that principle is lived up to, defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to see to it that those accused get the best possible representation. That doesn’t mean accepting every case. A lawyer whose daughter was sexually assaulted might not be able to do a good job defending someone accused of the same crime. In this case, the ethical obligation might be to refer the case out to a capable colleague.
That brings us to the final obligation of the defense attorney (or any lawyer for that matter): to zealously represent the interests of their client.
English law chose to strengthen the right to a fair trial, with the cost being that a small number of people (the defense lawyer and their staff) would have to do their jobs cognizant of the fact they were working to free a guilty person. That principle came across the Atlantic Ocean when the United States was founded a century later.
To a casual observer that can seem extreme, but there are reasons for the strictness of the attorney-client privilege. This concept goes back to 16 th century England. It was believed that the right to a fair trial would be stronger if attorneys were aware of all relevant facts. Some of those would be ones that only the defendant might know. Yet, the defendant would be hesitant to speak freely to counsel if there was concern over a possible slip-up that would inadvertently reveal they had committed the crime.
However, that doesn’t change the basic reality that a defense lawyer has a duty to protect privileged information, to see to it that every accused person gets the best representation possible and to zealously fight for those they represent themselves.
Defense lawyers are under no obligation to present factual evidence. Of course, they can’t lie or encourage others to lie, but the presentation of facts is the job of the prosecution. The defense only needs to raise enough doubts of those facts in the mind of the jury.
The defense lawyer for a high-profile defendant is often reviled by the general public. However, the promise of legal counsel is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and that promise would become empty if all defense attorneys ran from cases that were going to paint them in a negative light.
While their work enforces a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial, some observers chastise them for representing society's villains. In their view, that’s missing the point. In addition to making sure the scales of justice are balanced, criminal defense attorneys find satisfaction in tackling cases with high stakes.
Ask a criminal defense lawyer why they chose that legal subspecialty and the most common answer is that nothing gets their blood going more than a case with high stakes. “Cases move faster and they’re just more interesting than civil cases,” Gates says. “There’s nothing worse than an extended conversation about Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It’s just more interesting to talk about a bank robbery.”
Once in court, Lichtman focuses on finding the one person in the box of 12 to connect with. “I look up the backgrounds of jurors,” he says. “I’m looking for anything in the background I can exploit in order to tailor my summation to something that’s happened in their lives.”
"For me, I don’t mind this new mindset because I play into juries’ natural skepticism in my theory of defense. I exploit the facts that seem impossible to believe, even when true, and beseech the jury to use their common sense gained from a lifetime of experience. And TV watching."
When quizzing would-be participants, Lichtman talks fast: "I’m speaking a-mile-a-minute, looking to get the potentially problematic jurors to either knowingly or unwittingly expose their natural biases so that I can get them kicked off the panel for cause. The jurors who I think can keep an open mind or are anti-police I will not question at all, because I’m afraid they’ll reveal those biases and get struck by the prosecutor when he uses a peremptory challenge [an objection to a juror]."
Criminal defense attorneys, who stand beside clients accused of everything from minor offenses to mass murder, must mount the most effective defense of their client possible no matter how heinous the crime. While their work enforces a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial, some observers chastise them for representing society's villains.
To get a better understanding of this often emotionally draining work, Mental Floss spoke with three high-profile defense lawyers. In addition to Lichtman, we talked to Chris Tritico—the subject of the first episode of Oxygen’s In Defense Of docuseries premiering June 25, and who represented Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in 1997—as well as Bryan Gates, practicing in North Carolina. Here’s what they shared about life as a devil’s advocate.
Agreeing that a treatise is authoritative results in the legal consequence that the statements in the text that were otherwise inadmissible as hearsay can now be read into evidence to contradict the expert’s opinion. Asking if the expert turned in a colleague she was critical of for professional discipline.
Asking unintelligible questions in an effort to get the expert to volunteer information.
Scheduling a deposition over multiple days to get the expert to contradict herself.