Troy Davis, 41, was convicted in 1989, of the murder of Mark Allen MacPhail, an off-duty Savannah Ga. Police officer. MacPhail, who was running to the aid of a homeless man being pistol-whipped, was shot three times before he could draw his weapon. Davis has always maintained his innocence and those that have testified against Davis have recanted, saying that they were pressured into their testimony by the police. This case has thus far, garnered much international attention in that there are significant doubts over Davis’ guilt. The only evidence that we have that could justify Davis’ prosecution aside from eye
witnesses, is that the shell casings recovered from an earlier shooting linked to Davis matched with those at the scene of MacPhail’s murder. The question that arises from this article aside from whether or not Davis should be held responsible for the murder is how do we know what we know? And how do we know, if what we know is valid or not? For humans, there are four ways of knowing-language, perception, reason, and emotion. Language is a way of knowing via communication.
We know things because we have been told so, or have read of it somewhere, and language is the median with which this information travels by. However, language is extremely vague in that some words can have more than one meaning, and can be used in conjunction with literary techniques like irony/satire which can confuse people. Therefore, language is based solely on what the individual believes in, because a skilled speaker or writer can manipulate language to tie into what they are arguing for extremely persuasively.
Another way of knowing is based on sense perception-our five senses. Our senses are prone to deception in that our senses were made to manipulate what we see to make sense. Our ears only pick up certain range of sounds, because that is all that is important to our survival. Our tactile, olfactory and sense of taste are all convoluted so suit our needs, and are not applicable in providing evidence for a crime scene. Our visual sense, which we rely on the most, is the most convoluted of them all. Take for example these optical illusions. This is proof enough that eye witness testimony in a court hearing is extremely doubtful.
Adding to our senses not being able to pick up everything, it is also prone to distortion by emotions and prejudices. Brown and Kulik’s 1977 study of Flashbulb memories show that humans tend to connect two completely unrelated things together. In the study, a bright flash from the flashbulb was said to remind the participants of a deceased relative.
Reason is another way of knowing that seems to be more reliable, because it is based on reason and logic. Reasoning is probably the most straightforward and certain method of knowing, in that it doesn’t rely on human qualities that can distort our overall view of the situation. However, in cases like that of Davis’, where there isn’t much evidence at all, reason is difficult to put into application. From what we can discern from the limited amount of evidence, is that Davis is a suspect, nothing more, nothing less. The shell casings have been shown to be related to him and to MacPhail, and previous testimonies have recanted, leaving us with less and less evidence supporting the prosecution of Troy Davis.
Lastly, another way of knowing is through emotions. Although it might seem paradoxical at first, emotions actually help us make decisions in that it is the main way with which humans judge things. Our emotions tell us that killing police officers is a bad thing, and so it must be dealt with it. Intuition is a major part of knowing in that although it might not seem reliable, often has grain of truth in it. When we feel something burning into the back of our head, it is not necessarily someone holding a torch onto it, it could be someone staring intensely, but creates the same emotional output. Emotion is not a very reliable way of knowing, but it can make the difference in condemning a man to death if the intuition of a majority says that he or she is innocent.
The story of Troy Davis shows the flaws of the judicial system, in that with minimal evidence, a prosecution can go either way. Although it is true that the probability of having every single piece of evidence is quite low, this just goes to show how flawed the system is. This article relates to the movie/play, the twelve angry men. ‘The twelve angry men’ is about twelve jurors who have to decide the fate of a young man convicted of murdering his own father. The only evidence that they begin with, is the auditory evidence that old man living a floor under where the murder occurred gives, and the visual evidence of the woman living across the train tracks from the scene of crime. The issue that they had to deal with as well was that there wasn’t enough evidence to support either side, and even when they voted guilty at the start, most of them had a reasonable doubt that surfaced one by one, as the architect explained his view. So the question we are left with now, is whether it is better to convict someone of a crime when there is reasonable doubt suggesting otherwise, or let them go free, when the limited amount of evidence points to the suspect? I think that it is better for the suspect to be deemed not guilty if there is a reasonable doubt, because the judicial system is based on innocent until proven guilty.
In legal cases sense perception, reasoning, language, and emotion are 'ways of knowing' that exist as evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the convicted. This particular court case shows that the judicial system has its flaws because of the lack of certainty about any individual way of knowing. In my opinion, and in theory, the judicial system should make rulings based on the combined evidence from all four ways of knowing. In this particular case, certain ways of knowing are given more importance than others. The judiciary is not itself all-knowing, and therefore cannot make this value judgment.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, however, reasoning and emotion are given higher import than sense perception, resulting in a guilty verdict. Apart from the shell casings that were found, which is not conclusive evidence, ballistics did not find any strong evidence against Davis' plea for innocence. Davis' guilt cannot be reasoned from this evidence. Furthermore, his guilt cannot be determined from eye witness testimony, based on sense perception, which was recanted on numerous occasions in this case. The inevitable human reasoning for a case like this is that if Davis did not kill the policeman, then who did? However, again in theory, the judicial system should not convict a man simply because he is the only suspect.
Language is not so much an issue in this case. However emotion plays a major role, which has not been fully addressed. Emotion is very important to the plaintiff in this case. Davis' 'victim' was a police officer. The eyewitnesses were supposedly 'forced' to provide testimony by the police department. The police department, then, has a very strong emotional attachment to the case. The police department, as an institution, has a responsibility and a reputation to 'bring justice', much like the judiciary itself. This, then, is somewhat of a conflict of interests, which does not work in Davis' favor.
The broader issue, in this case, is the validity of government institutions which cannot be objective, especially when the emotional aspect of a case is considered, and when certain ways of knowing are given greater importance than others. Neither sense perception or reason provide sufficient evidence to convict Davis, but he was still found guilty. How much faith should human kind put in such government institutions, if they can convict a man without an evidentiary basis of support? What are the value of such institutions if they cannot be fully objective? Furthermore, what is 'justice'? It cannot be said that Davis was 'done justice' if the evidence does not prove his guilt.
Aside from your arguments on the ways of knowing and how sense perception can be deceptive, I also believe that schema plays a crucial role in this matter. From what I've learned from last year's psychology class, schema could make eye-witness testimony very subjective. For example people typically think of alcohol when we say a girl is a bartender, while we typically think of books or glasses when a woman says she's a librarian. Based on who they are and what they do in the society, our perception of who they are could be altered. In Troy Davis' case, not only the fact that a police was shot added to the testimony that he is guilty, the fact that he is a black man could possibly lead to schema that "black people could be dangerous", which is not true for all the cases. I definitely agree with you on the fact that the judicial system, in this case, is very flawed and I cannot believe Davis was executed for something he may have done many years ago.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Kate when she says that language is not so much an issue in this case. I feel that it is important to expand on language as a way of knowing in relation to the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the judicial system is a process that involves reasoning until either one of two conclusions is reached: guilty, or not guilty. However, it is important to acknowledge that by committing to one extreme is not always beneficial; can someone be completely guilty or not guilty? The words guilty and not guilty are concepts we convey through the use of language. Thus, these concepts can be manipulated in different contexts by definition.
Even if there was a universal definition for guilty which the law always falls back to in all cases, there is still room for ambiguity. A dictionary defines guilty as "culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing". To what extent is someone responsible for something? If Davis did not in fact shoot the officer, did his presence at the scene alter it and cause the shooting to take place? Is the maker of the gun responsible for creating the tool of murder? Is the police force responsible for not equipping their officers better to deal with these situations?
Also, you use the word proven, which is, again, limited by language as a way of knowing. Can innocence or guilt really be proved? Is proof defined by a comfortable amount of evidence pointing to a wrongdoing?
Responsibility is always diffused; the law tries to pinpoint the blame to a specific individuals or group of individuals who they believe are responsible to the greatest extent and is and will always be flawed for that reason.