|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ine asked:
|
|
Can a person decide about an other person if he's guilty or not?
|
|
============
|
|
Certainly: but whether the decision is right or wrong is quite another thing. Although I have never in
my life entered a court of law, other than to view the furniture or discuss its history, I have always
been critical of the events taking place therein. The number of innocent people sent to prison or the
gallows over the years is incredible, and these are only the ones we know about! It always seems to
me that in court proceedings the issue is not whether the alleged wrong-doer is guilty or not guilty, but
which barrister produces the more convincing argument! These arguments are presented to a jury,
the members of which are chosen at random from the general public, (although the term random
could be in question, considering the parameters obtaining in the range of choice). Whether we like it
or not, a juror is no different to any other person when it comes to making snap decisions based on
preconceived ideas of what a guilty or innocent person may looklike, or how they may behave under
interrogation.
|
|
Looking at the question from a philosophical angle, unless the perpetrator of crime has been caught
red-handed, then all judgements in court are subject to false interpretation. Courts present examples
of the differing views of 'empiricists' and 'rationalists'. Empiricists might claim that participants in a trial
would have to be present at the scene of the crime when it was actually perpetrated to make a true
judgement, they claim that all knowledge is derived through the senses. The witnesses they rely on in
court could be good liars, or have misinterpreted what they witnessed, or they could have been got at.
Rationalists, on the other hand, may argue that judgements can be made by reason and intuition from
the evidence provided. Ask yourself which of the two options you would choose if you were an
innocent person whose life depended on the verdict of the jury!!
|
|
Most of us are prone to making judgements about people almost everyday of our lives, no doubt we
often condemn the innocent as guilty.
|
|
John Brandon
|
|