Beyond words: Pragmatics and Fairness in Judging Speech- Related Offenses

Abstract

Language is a fundamental tool that underpins everyday communication and plays a crucial role in legal contexts, where meaning, intention, and interpretation directly influence judicial outcomes. This study aims to enhance legal practitioners’ awareness of pragmatics in judicial decision-making and to encourage the consideration of contextual and pragmatic factors when adjudicating speech-related offenses. The study was conducted in Gisagara district-Rwanda, and involved 20 participants who had been sentenced for speech-related offenses. These offenses included verbal insults and expressions considered unlawful, such as threats, defamation, harassment, and hate speech. Of the participants, 18 were judged in community meetings led by local leaders, while the remaining 2 were judged in formal courtrooms. These cases highlight the importance of pragmatic competence in accurately interpreting legal discourse before reaching judicial decisions. A qualitative research approach was employed to capture participants’ experiences in depth. Data were collected through interviews, notetaking, and focus group discussions, and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive framework, with particular attention to pragmatic patterns in communication. The findings reveal that 80% of respondents found legal terminology difficult due to complex language and fear of judges, which hindered comprehension and communication. In contrast, 20% reported moderate understanding based on prior experience, while none found it easy. Furthermore, 90% reported committing speech-related offenses; however, some claimed that insufficient attention was given to their social context. Regarding fairness, 90% perceived the sentences as just, while 5% believed they were wrongly sentenced despite being innocent, and another 5% reported not being sentenced despite committing an offense. Finally, 90% were judged within their communities in public settings, which enhanced contextual understanding, whereas 10% were judged far from their communities, leading to fear, limited participation, and reduced access to relevant contextual information.