ABSTRACT
In Chapter 8, two cases involving the same defendant and his very similar acts of physical and verbal violence against two taxi drivers are analysed. The point of departure is a bewilderment by the difference in how the cases unfolded and how this, in turn, resulted in very different treatment by the courts. This difference lay not so much in the verdicts in the two cases as in the rhetorical framing of the judgements: while the first case was approached, explained and adjudicated as a case of racist violence, in the second, any reference to this possible dimension of the act was missing. One of the factors that contributed to this outcome was how the acts on trial were understood by the injured parties. My argument is that it is important to see the agency of those involved in the trials in order to understand the outcomes thereof. This also applies to the ways in which the judges interpret the law. This chapter is thereby an attempt to develop a more dynamic model of the judiciary, in which the laws are constantly transformed through the interpretative practice of those who judge.
