Allocution, sentencing, and viewers’ comments in YouTube-mediated trials of convicted young murderers: an appraisal-sentiment analysis

Abstract Courtroom discourse, a highly conventionalized genre, integrates numerous linguistic affordances and semiotic resources. Courtroom interactions provide a rich environment for displaying power, identity, ideology, and affect. This study examines six YouTube-mediated courtroom trials of young murderers who committed homicides. The study focuses on two phases of the trial: the “leniency plea” or “the allocution” and the sentencing phase, with the objective of identifying the perpetrators’ attitudinal disposition during the allocution, which can vary in length. The study also investigates the attitudinal resources detected in courtroom decisions. Moreover, the study addresses the sentiments and attitudes of the public, as reflected in the comments of YouTube viewers. To this end, sentiment analysis is employed to discern the emotional tenor and engagement of the audience, as well as the sentiments expressed by both judges and perpetrators. To this end, the study synthesizes Martin and White’s (Martin,James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English . New York: Palgrave Macmillan) Appraisal theory with sentiment analysis. The findings showcase that affectual evaluations are more prevalent in allocutions. The study highlights how high-profile cases are shaped by moral and emotional evaluations.