By definition, any argument that contains faulty reasoning is termed a logical fallacy. Most logical fallacies are arguments seem psychologically convincing, but are weak logically. Most importantly, a logical fallacy makes people accept certain arguments and conclusions that would ordinarily not be easily acceptable as valid (Doss et al. 2014). This paper discusses some logical fallacies and how they affect criminal justice.
Argumentum ad hominem
The argumentum ad hominem is the argument directed at a particular person.
The ad hominem is considered a fallacy that neither the speaker's character nor the circumstances reveal any facts concerning the validity or the invalidity of the argument presented by the speaker or whether the speaker's conclusion is true or false. Sometimes, even people whose characters do not conform to accepted social norms are known to offer valid arguments, and the instance of the political interests of the speaker coinciding with the conclusion reveal nothing about how true or false the conclusion might be. ad hominem arguments can be characterized either on the basis of abusiveness or circumstances. The abusive complicity tries to criticize the opponent's character hoping to influence the transfer of the audience's animosity in the favor of the argument of the opponent. The circumstantial multiplicity does not concentrate on a character imperfection, but on possibility of the bias that might emanate from the circumstances of the opponent. For instance, the response "What else were you expecting from a communist?" may be considered an abusive ad hominem, because it might raise the hope of the respondent that the audience has obvious disregard for all communists and will therefore not accept any sort of communist argument. The above statement may also be considered circumstantial once it hints that the opponent based his argument on furthering the principles of the communists (Saunders,1993).
Argumentum ad misericordiam
Under...
Since there is no connection whatsoever between how much pity one feels for a particular speaker and the validity of the speaker's arguments, the appeal to pity can be said to be an informal fallacy. However, such arguments are accepted by the courts on a regular basis; for example, in Ryan v. People, the court cut down the sentence handed down to the defendant for hindering government operations from one year to 6 months. The reason the court gave was "the totality of the disgrace faced by the defendant, the manner in which he was discharged by the Department, forfeiting his pension and other entitlements, the pitiable sight of his suffering wife and incapacitated children, who all depend on his support and presence." The court was quite aware its action as a response to an appeal to pity or ad misericordiam, however, the court stated clearly that whenever such as plea is presented, the court "must clearly view all circumstances and facts, measuring rights of society and justice, avoidance of cruelty and punishment." The court made further addition "mercy, in its right place, is the characteristic of every appellate court" (Saunders,1993).
Argument ad populum
The argument ad populum also known as 'appeal for emotion', tries to establish its own conclusion by making a connection between the argument and with certain values, held at high esteem by the speaker's audience. The argument is an obvious contradiction of the application of ad hominem. Under the abusive context, proponents of ad hominem links the arguments of the proponents with certain negative values, exclusively the opponent's weak character traits and negative attributes. The ad populum, on the other hand, links the conclusions postulated by the proponents with certain positive…
