By Plenary Sessions: Jaanus Karilaid

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and question-oriented. The speaker employs a logical and structured approach, sequentially posing three specific questions (resources, cost, partners) to gather factual information. Emotional or narrative appeals are absent.

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and urgent, blending statistical data (a 10% rise in crime) with emotional appeals that highlight the suffering and loss of honor experienced by families victimized by lengthy court proceedings. It employs a contrasting approach, pitting the perspective of the prosecutor and the judge against the viewpoint of the citizen, which is invariably critical. It demands concrete action plans from the government, rather than merely identifying problems, and repeatedly requests additional time to present its arguments.

The rhetorical style is polite and formal, respectfully addressing both the chairman and the presenter. The speech is logical and strictly focuses on the details of the draft resolution, presenting clear and specific questions without emotional appeals.

The tone of the address is critical, demanding, and at times accusatory, particularly aimed at the Prime Minister, who stands accused of failing to answer questions. Logical appeals are employed, highlighting economic consequences (specifically, hindering job and income creation) alongside emotionally charged expressions like "a very, very painful problem" and comparing the situation to the US-Mexico border.