Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text provides an interesting contribution: the influence of public opinion (through online forums) on judicial decisions, by analysing the influence of linguistic aspects in text/discursive analysis. It's an article with a broad theoretical framework and updated references on the subject.

 

It is a work in progress with a relevant social contribution.

 

Therefore, it should be published

Author Response

Thanks very much for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The article offers an examination of the legal intricacies surrounding criminal responsibility, particularly in the context of a case involving KT. The premise (public discourse shaping legislation) is sound, but the analysis could do with greater depth. Whilst the paper notes that the frameworks will be dialogism and interpretative semantics, in reality we are primarily given a re-narration of the examples in running prose with only a little additional content. In terms of presentation, there are several areas that require linguistic and contextual adjustments to enhance clarity and precision. These refinements will help ensure that the arguments are presented as robustly as possible. I give a few specific examples from the first third of the paper in the “Detailed comments” section below, but note that the whole paper should be checked and adjusted accordingly.

Detailed comments:

1. Proofreading and Language (e.g. lines 041, 042, 048):

There are minor proofreading issues throughout the manuscript. For instance, the phrase "the criminal irresponsibility of the murderer" is somewhat misleading. The term "irresponsibility" could imply "criminal negligence," which differs from what the author likely intends. A more appropriate term might be "lack of criminal responsibility." Similarly, in line 042, the phrase "during weeks" would be clearer as "during the next few weeks" or "for weeks." In line 048, the term "toxic substances" is used, but the context suggests KT consumed cannabis. Given the potential psychiatric implications, "narcotics" or "psychoactive drugs" might be more precise. Overall, the paper would benefit from a thorough proofreading by a fluent English speaker to catch such issues.

2. Terminology and Emotional Tone (e.g. line 062):

The use of "seized" to describe the court's action may seem emotive unless it is the technical term used in legal contexts. If not, a more neutral term should be considered to maintain an objective tone. Ensure that this applies throughout.

3. Background Context (e.g. lines 061-078):

The discussion of the 2019 and 2021 court decisions lacks sufficient background information. The reader is left to infer their existence and relevance to the KT case. Providing a brief context or summary of these decisions would greatly enhance understanding. Ensure that throughout, enough background context is given for the reader to successfully follow.

4. Placement of Observations (e.g. line 080):

The statement "a key information source to whom?" appears misplaced. It seems more appropriate for the data, analysis, or discussion sections. Forward-flagging how this observation was derived would make the narrative smoother and more logical.

5. Clarification of Terms (e.g. lines 092-093):

The terms "subjective view" and "objective view" require further clarification. For example, if "subjective view" refers to the ordinary person and "objective view" to representatives of the justice system, this distinction should be clearly articulated. Additionally, the binary distinction should be handled cautiously, acknowledging that even practitioners, though striving for objectivity, operate within an inherently imperfect system.

6. Ambiguity and Grammar (e.g. lines 099, 127-131, 172-174, 187-188):

-          Line 099 contains an ambiguous sentence: "exposure of the crime" might need rephrasing for clarity.

-          Lines 127-131 have grammatical issues that need correction.

-          Lines 172-174 are somewhat clumsy due to the repeated use of "at the time." An alternative phrasing would improve readability.

-          Lines 187-188 exhibit tense switching, which is confusing.

7. Referencing (e.g. lines 094-112):

The section requires more specific references, including page numbers, to support the arguments presented. This will strengthen the academic rigor of the paper.

Conclusion

The article looks to contribute to the analysis of criminal responsibility, and in that respect it presents a valuable and needed step forward in the field. However, look to enhance the depth of the analysis through, e.g. a deeper engagement with the frameworks through, e.g. callbacks to the literature, more time going into greater depth (which in turn may require fewer examples, but so be it), additional context to help the reader understand what is going forward in some places, and clearer definitions of key terms to enhance its overall clarity and impact. I therefore recommend a careful revision to address the points highlighted above before the article is considered for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See "comments and suggestions"

Author Response

1. Proofreading and Language (e.g. lines 041, 042, 048):

There are minor proofreading issues throughout the manuscript. For instance, the phrase "the criminal irresponsibility of the murderer" is somewhat misleading. The term "irresponsibility" could imply "criminal negligence," which differs from what the author likely intends. A more appropriate term might be "lack of criminal responsibility." Similarly, in line 042, the phrase "during weeks" would be clearer as "during the next few weeks" or "for weeks." In line 048, the term "toxic substances" is used, but the context suggests KT consumed cannabis. Given the potential psychiatric implications, "narcotics" or "psychoactive drugs" might be more precise. Overall, the paper would benefit from a thorough proofreading by a fluent English speaker to catch such issues.

 

I proofread the paper and took into account your useful suggestions

 

2. Terminology and Emotional Tone (e.g. line 062):

The use of "seized" to describe the court's action may seem emotive unless it is the technical term used in legal contexts. If not, a more neutral term should be considered to maintain an objective tone. Ensure that this applies throughout.

 

Indeed, I changed this verb. The tone is more neutral in French

3. Background Context (e.g. lines 061-078):

The discussion of the 2019 and 2021 court decisions lacks sufficient background information. The reader is left to infer their existence and relevance to the KT case. Providing a brief context or summary of these decisions would greatly enhance understanding. Ensure that throughout, enough background context is given for the reader to successfully follow.

 

I added some context and reframed the context subsection

4. Placement of Observations (e.g. line 080):

The statement "a key information source to whom?" appears misplaced. It seems more appropriate for the data, analysis, or discussion sections. Forward-flagging how this observation was derived would make the narrative smoother and more logical.

I put paragraphs about media and penal populism to the results and discussion section to enhance the understanding about the topic. 

5. Clarification of Terms (e.g. lines 092-093):

The terms "subjective view" and "objective view" require further clarification. For example, if "subjective view" refers to the ordinary person and "objective view" to representatives of the justice system, this distinction should be clearly articulated. Additionally, the binary distinction should be handled cautiously, acknowledging that even practitioners, though striving for objectivity, operate within an inherently imperfect system.

 

I clarified the terms, and removed subjective and objective notions. Thanks for pointing this out. I could rethink this part and go deeper to expert/non-expert discourse literature and develop it in the intro.

7. Referencing (e.g. lines 094-112):

The section requires more specific references, including page numbers, to support the arguments presented. This will strengthen the academic rigor of the paper.

I included page numbers and develop more specific references to strengthen the paper. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that deals with a very important topic. I believe, however, that some revision is required before publication. 

The major issue I perceive is the structure of the introduction. The introduction should start with the broad contextualization of the research rather than with a description of what was done in the study. 

Some explanations are missing that are needed to understand the study if one is not familiar with the concepts, the case, or specifically with French phenomena. 

The numbering of the examples is wrong - please correct. 

It appears to me as if the referencing style is not consistent. Some references are provided through footnotes, others are in-text.

The results section and the presentation and discussion of the results would profit from statistics: to get a better overview of the data and the results, it would be helpful to state, for example, how often posts were opened with media texts, how often a particular theme appeared, etc.

Also, it is not clear to me how you analyzed the texts. Did you use any software for the annotation? 

Some comments are in the PDF document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some translations of quotes would profit from having them checked again. Otherwise, the level of English is acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. 

Comment 1 : I reframed the intro and started with a broad contextualization of the research on language of law (lay-experts and non-experts in forums). I moved some paragraph (in red) from the theoretical background to the intro. Other ones to the discussion/conclusion

Comment 2 : I added some explanation about the context and the case

Comment 3 : The numbering wasn't wrong, I think there was an issue with the word document. Please see the PDF version. 

Comment 4 : I added some statistics about media in the forums and explained why I choose this forums

Comment 5 : I analyzed the forums by looking at the cooccurrences and each time tried to find what thematic/semantic features were related to them

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for their careful and thoughtful revisions which have addressed all my concerns in turn. This is an important contribution and a good example of the way that scholarly insight can provide an important service in understanding how justice is shaped by ordinary people and the media. I congratulate the author on such a considered and extended effort and wish them every further success.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for making the required changes, the manuscript is quite improved now.