Week 3 - Blog 3

Ch. 8 Defending the Self – Blog 3

The Common Forms of Accounts discussed on pages 219-223 significantly reminded me of the types of accounts you might here from an attorney defending his/her client. In COMM 149, we discussed the 4 major headings in which you could conduct a defense in Rome in later A.D. and early B.C.; these 4 headings notably parallel communication scholars’ common forms of accounts. The first frequent act of defense accused of a misdeed by a court of law is to deny the offense. Interpersonal Communication scholars, according to our text, refer to this as “refusal.” “In a refusal, a person denies that the questionable act occurred or denies responsibility for it.” Furthermore, the “principled justification” account also reflects elements of the Roman defense system, as well as our modern defense system. In Roman times, an advocate could justify his client’s crime through “the issue of Quality” which means that the client is not denying he committed the crime, but claiming that there were higher circumstances at play which provide a legitimate and excusable explanation for the wrongful act. Similarly, the principled justification act, in our text, “is used when a person accepts responsibility for an action but says there was a ‘good reason’ for engaging in the action based on values, goals, or principles.” In this area of study, modern scholarship has confirmed ancient suspicions.