Abstract
This essay examines 2003’s Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade, decisions which affirmed the constitutionality of California’s notorious repeat offender sentencing laws. The essay argues that the plurality opinions (written by Justice O’Connor) are, in important ways, richly rhetorical texts that suggest much about the complex intersections between law, rhetoric, and the violence enacted in law’s name. In particular, the essay seeks to uncover the operation of a powerful narrative strategy in her opinions that makes them important rhetorical performances in our collective conversation about crime and punishment in this nation.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
