Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KALUNTA-CRUMPTON, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 38:561-591 (1998)
© 1998 Centre for Crime & Justice Studies (formerly ISTD)

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE OF BLACK DEFENDANTS IN DRUG TRIALS

Evidence of Claims-Making

ANITA KALUNTA-CRUMPTON*

* Lecturer in Criminal Justice and Social Policy, University of Plymouth UK

Prosecuting and defence barristers' participation in trial is of principal significance in determining a case outcome. It is the intention of this article to examine the role that barristers play in shaping the representation of black people in the criminal statistics. Detailed observations of drug offence trials concerning black defendants demonstrate this role in the way barristers socially construct drug cases through the process of claims-making—an activity that entails an impressive utilization of language to persuade. The study describes how, within this claims-making process, racially imbued knowledge seemed to inform barristers' presentation of the defendants' cases before the jury. In conclusion, the findings question the authenticity of criminal statistics as an indication of guilt.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 European Journal of CriminologyHome page
J. Rodriguez, J. Keene, and X. Li
The Substantial Service Demands of Offenders and Frequent Offenders
European Journal of Criminology, April 1, 2006; 3(2): 149 - 179.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.