Document Type

Working Paper

Publication Date

4-27-2001

SSRN Discipline

*Humanities - Forthcoming Areas; LSN Subject Matter eJournals; Legal Scholarship Network; PRN Subject Matter eJournals; Rhetoric & Communication Research Network; Criminal Law & Procedure eJournals; Philosophy Research Network; Womens & Gender Studies Research Network; Law School Research Papers - Legal Studies; Law School Research Papers - Public Law & Legal Theory; Humanities Network; Political Science Network; RCRN Subject Matter eJournals

Abstract

Floor speeches by legislators constitute an important body of legal rhetoric This article studies the Megans Law legislative floor debates in both the United States Congress and the New York state legislature The article begins by setting out three practical purposes of legislative debate First it can influence voting decisions Second it educates and influences both the media and the voting public Finally it provides a rich source of interpretive material for the judiciary The article then sets out a naturalistic description of these speeches comparing the two jurisdictions Legislators in both Washington DC and Albany argued for the new laws primarily by painting a grim picture of the status quo They offered horrific accounts of individual child victimization questionable statistical claims about the extent of the molestation and abduction crisis and dehumanizing descriptions of child sexual offenders Particularly within the US Congress legislators spent little time touting bills virtues or rebutting the many possible criticisms of these controversial provisions New York legislators perhaps because of their greater political diversity offered more nuanced critiques of the billsThe article then assesses legislators rhetorical tropes and claims Storytelling for instance presented both problems and benefits as a primary rhetorical tool for promoting the new social policy And despite the apparent value of statistical proof such empirical data was easily manipulated by savvy legislators Many issues were underdeveloped during the Megans Law debates For example while virtually all legislators spoke exclusively of white offenders and victims legislators rhetoric entirely excluded a discussion of the laws likely disparate impact on AfricanAmericans Similarly few legislators acknowledged that benefits of the law if any were to be had would flow almost entirely to suburban and other low density communities Finally the article considers how the Megans Law debates educated the public affected legislative voting or shaped judicial interpretation of the bills Because it concludes that the Megans Law legislative debates did not optimally serve these three practical aims the article evaluates new approaches to enriching the content of legislative debate It argues that legislatures could appoint a public legislative advocate the equivalent of a public defender within the legislative context or adopt new codes of debate In any case legislators should look for ways to improve and enhance the rhetoric of legislative debate

Download

Share

COinS