![](bg6.png)
4.4.3 Getting a good image from the
community
It has been mentioned earlier that in conducting its
activities, the judiciary seeks to create a positive
image and tends to avoid negative image. This image
can be formed with an impression approach. The
impression strategy may differ depending on the
target community. Explanation in the copies of court
decisions are a rhetorical process or story as a Judicial
System strategy to establish a good image of the
judiciary institution. Through these copies, the
judiciary also displays positive statements related to
law enforcement. Here are some examples.
Majelis Hakim berpendapat bahwa hukuman
yang akan dijatuhkan kepada Terdakwa adalah
sudah cukup setimpal dan adil dengan perbuatan
yang telah dilakukan oleh Terdakwa tersebut. .
The Panel of Judges is of the opinion that the
sentence to be imposed on the Defendant is sufficient
and fair to the act which the Defendant has
committed. (Copy of Decision 1).
Majelis Hakim memperhatikan dari segi
kemanusiaan sehingga dengan dijatuhkan pidana
tersebut tidak akan menderitakan.
The judges are concerned with humanitarian
matters so that the imposition of such a crime will not
be miserable. (Copy of Decision 3).
The above statement indicates that the existence
of the Judiciary has had a positive influence on law
enforcement in Indonesia. This indicates that the
judiciary struggles to form a positive image in the
eyes of the people. This positive image can be
indirectly interpreted as the acquisition of legitimacy.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study aims to answer two main questions. The
first question is how decision-making is narrated in
the copies of decisions. In disclosing decision-making
information, the judges use the standard format of
court decision making as a guide. The judge discloses
background information on decision making in the
form of a rhetorical story to form a positive image that
the decisions they take can be justified by virtue of
applicable law. This is done to convince the reader, in
this case the public, as well as to gain legitimacy as
the implementer of the law.
The second research question is why the copies of
court decision is different from the decision read out
in court. From semiotic analysis, it can be concluded
that there are several reasons for why the copies of
court decision is different from the official decision
read out in court. These reasons include the copies of
court decision in the Indonesian justice system as a
medium of communication between the judiciary and
the community, so it must be presented in a solid and
clear manner. The copies of court decision is
rhetorical forms of judiciary to obtain a good image
of the community and to gain legitimacy from the
parties in the courtroom.
REFERENCES
Cao, D., 2017. Chinese law: A language perspective.
London: Routledge.
Chase, O. G., 2015. Narrative, Inference, and Law in
Cultural Context. In: J. S. Bruner, ed. Beyond 100.
s.l.:Springer, pp. 211-218.
Dubrovskaya, T., Dankova, N. & Gulyaykina, S., 2015.
Judicial power in Russian print media: Strategies of
representation. Discourse & Communication, 9(3), pp.
293-312.
Fleisher, M. S., 2015. The Culture of Violent Behavior:
Language, Culture, and Worldview of Prison Rape.
Qualitative Research in Criminology, Issue 1, p. 101.
Gasparov, B., 2016. Between Methodological Strictness
and Moral Appeal: Questions of Language and Cultural
Theory in Russia. History of Humanities, 1(2), pp. 303-
326.
Habermas, J., 2015. Between facts and norms:
Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Hart, R. P., Daughton, S. M., & LaVally, R., 2017. Modern
rhetorical criticism. London: Routledge.
Heracleous, L., & Klaering, L. A., 2014. Charismatic
leadership and rhetorical competence: An analysis of
Steve Jobs’s rhetoric. Group & Organization
Management, 39(2), pp. 131-161..
Hoed, B., 2007. Semiotik dan dinamika sosial budaya. 2nd
ed. Depok: Komunitas Bambu.
Martin, J., 2016. Capturing desire: Rhetorical strategies and
the affectivity of discourse. The British Journal of
Politics and International Relations, 18(1), pp. 143-
160.
Mattila, H. E., 2016. Comparative legal linguistics:
language of Law, Latin and modern lingua francas.
London: Routledge.
Mautner, G., 2016. Checks and balances: How corpus
linguistics can contribute to CDA. In: R. Wodak & M.
Meyer, eds. Methods of CDA. London: Sage, pp. 154-
179.
Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. , 2015. Law and logic: a review
from an argumentation perspective. Artificial
Intelligence, Volume 227, pp. 214-245..
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
244