Ways of Representation of Main Suggestive Strategies and Tactics in Law Discourse

This article is devoted to the research of the mechanisms of suggestive influence represented in professional layers–prosecutors and attorneys–speech within the English law discourse on the material of a particular witness examination part of the court procedure.Some basic suggestive strategies and tactics used in this step and brief characteristics of their intentiality and ways of representation are presented.It is stated that suggestion as a means of persuasion and manipulation on a psyche is possible only due to the existence of a certain mechanism which gives a person an opportunity to perceive the suggested influences and reflect them.The authors suppose that the analysis of an effective manipulation of professional opponents–a plaintiff and a defendant(some basic suggestive-psychological algorithms used at the opening statement as well as suggestive strategies,tactics and methods applied)might considerably enhance the perspectives of studying characteristic features of law discourse thus allowing to get closer to the understanding of how a person’s brain works as well as the nature of consciousness and subconsciousness together with the anthropocentric approach aimed at realization of manipulation/suggestion within the situation of an institutional communication.

Mandatory Appearances of Forensic Examiner for Cross-Examination in Court and Related Systemic Improvement Under China's Criminal Procedure

In China's criminal procedure system,forensic advice is one of the key types of evidence.These advices play an important part in discovering the facts of a case,convictions,and sentencing,and they cannot be ignored in assessments of guilt and the death penalty.However,due to broad and flexible criminal laws,in actual litigation,the nonappearance of forensic examiner or mere provision of documentation of advice read in court has become the norm.This has led to the existence in name only of cross-examination rights,which directly damages the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and the objective and impartial rulings of referees.At present,there is no legal clarity in criminal proceedings that examiner should or should not be examined in court.In my opinion,the entire court system should require an appearance in court,which must be a clear mandatory appearance with specific exceptions.The system should guarantee the forensic examiner5 mandatory appearances,which would inevitably improve the rules of evidence.