Manipulative of Courtroom Language: Implication on Children In Conflict With the Law, Eldoret Court, Kenya
- November 19, 2019
- Posted by: RSIS
- Categories: IJRISS, Law
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019 | ISSN 2454–6186
Odera Josephine
Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya
Abstract:- This paper focuses on the the implications of the manipulative nature of courtroom language on children in conflict with the law. The study adopted a descriptive design method because the variables were not manipulated. The study was carried out in the children’s court in Eldoret, Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. This is because Eldoret is close to the researcher and also being the major towns in North Rift region, the courts around have cases involving children that they handle. Therefore the research would also benefit the other courts across the country. The main instruments of data collection were audio recordings of the court proceedings and interview schedules of children’s advocate both the prosecution and the defense attorney. The target population was children of 8 to 15 years old. From the analyses it is established. The children in conflict with the law usually find it hard to participate fully in a trial due to the nature of the courtroom language. The study recommends that the government to do a revision on the guidelines on how to do direct examination and cross examination of children in conflict with the law.
Key Words: Manipulative, Courtroom, Implication, Conflict
I. INTRODUCTION
The discussion on implications of the Manipulative Nature of Courtroom Language on Children in Conflict with the Law has been a concern to the scholars. Questions can be manipulative. Questioning is the key flagship of the courtroom discourse. This demonstrates the power of language, which has influence and control of linguistic interactions. One party is placed in a situation where he/she needs to prove innocence to a crime and the other party is brought in to answer to the charges leveled against him/her. The judge or the magistrate always acts as an arbitrator. They need to get all the facts of the case which are normally assembled in a systematic way in order for them to get a clearer understanding of what happened before they make a ruling (Danet,1980).
Satia (2013) focuses on the strategies used in the magistrate’s court in Kenya during cross-examination. The paper analyzed strategies of controlling the linguistic responses of prosecution witnesses that were employed by two accused persons in a grievous-bodily-harm case involving family members at a magistrate’s court in Kenya.
