Abstract
This article presents a study of the theatrical performance in court in a high-profile transnational corporate bribery case. Data gathered from observations in court were supplemented with interviews with the defense teams and the presiding judge. The paper’s objective is to demonstrate how the defendants performed unbelonging in court via the interactions between the different ‘teams’ in the courtroom; the defense, the prosecutors, the judges, and the company Telia. The analysis draws on Goffman’s theater analogy and his understandings of performance and self-presentation. The authors introduce the concept of ‘performing unbelonging in court’ and show how the defendants performed unbelonging via an indirect expression of status and standing. The authors further analyze the defense teams’ framing of the case, including the framing of the defendants as being scapegoated by the corporation, and of the prosecution as being unfair and illegitimate, which also contributes to the performance of unbelonging in court. The complexity and ambiguity of a transnational corporate bribery case permeated the interactions during the trial; however, at the end of the article, the authors discuss how knowledge from this case is transferable to other crime types or legal cultures.
Highlights
Corporate crime is often described as extremely complex, which makes everything from detection to the collection of evidence and securing convictions difficult for the justice system (Burns & Meitl, 2020; Croall, 1993)
This paper contributes to the tradition of ‘court ethnography’, but from the perspective of a less traditional form of crime
What is significant here is the type of case being prosecuted, a high-profile transnational corporate bribery case
Summary
Corporate crime is often described as extremely complex, which makes everything from detection to the collection of evidence and securing convictions difficult for the justice system (Burns & Meitl, 2020; Croall, 1993). Prosecutors are not supposed to bring cases to court unless they are convinced they are very likely to result in a conviction (Bergman Blix & Wettergren, 2018). These circumstances result in white-collar crime, including corporate crime, rarely being tried in court These circumstances result in white-collar crime, including corporate crime, rarely being tried in court (Burns & Meitl, 2020; Mann, 1988; Levi, 2017, p. 9)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.