Logical Fallacies and Criminal Justice

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.

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).

Under an argumentum ad misericordiam, also known as an appeal to pity, in which case the audience is manipulated to welcome the argument based on the pitiable circumstances of the speaker rather than the strength of the argument. 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).

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 values. Both the former and latter are flawed logically: just the same way an identified liar can present a very valid argument, it is possible that the generally accepted argument is invalid, and the generally accepted value not relevant to the argument. For instance, Sigalas v. Lido Maritime, Inc. was about an avoidable death of a seaman whose death, the wife believed, was caused by the obvious incompetence of the surgeon attending to her husband's ship. The court where the case was heard upheld that the American law made no provision for such a case and dismissed the death action citing forum non conveniens. While arguing for the American law to be applied and for the case to be heard by an American court, the plaintiff made a plea concerning the risk the medical incompetence of the medical personnel attached to the ship posed to the American passengers aboard. The court however, turned down the plaintiff's plea citing ad populum since the victim was not an American passenger (Saunders,1993).

The argumentum ignoratum, also known as the appeal to ignorance, concerns the supposition of the truthfulness of a proposition since it is yet to be proven false, or the supposition of its inaccuracy arising from the inability to ascertain its truthfulness. Argument based on ignorance: 'The fallacy that says anything we are unaware of, or cannot possibly know or find the proof to its falsehood or truthfulness, must either be true of false." It has severe effects on professional ethics. For example, Scientists will never be able to prove their postulation accurately that human beings evolved from animals, because no one was there to witness it! So, that is a proof of the truthfulness of the six-day account of creation as recorded by Genesis (Williamson, 2016). This can sometimes include "the reasoning or either-or." For instance, "The veterinary doctor can't possibly come up with a reasonable and acceptable cause of my dog's death' -- that is a proof that the dog was poisoned by my neighbor! That is the only logical explanation." This fallacy commonly observed in most forensic reasoning and American judicial system (Doss et al. 2014). Furthermore, a person's inability to invalidate another's guilt will not be accepted as a validation of that person's guilt. Such conclusion would not only contradict the values on which the American system of justice was established; but it would also amount to irrational reasoning (Ramee, 2002).

Argumentum ad Terrorem, also known as the appeal to fear or the list of horribles, concerns the appeal to every intolerable consequence said to arise from the opposed proposition. The complexity associated with the identification of a fallacy of this sort is that, when there is need for a policy decision, it is important and reasonable to examine the obvious consequences of such a decision. In the case of Borer v. American Airlines, Inc. nine children filed for recovery for the loss of parental association from the company who manufactured the lighting fixture that fell and left their mother injured. The hearing court refused to grant the recovery, and rejected the theory that claim a recovery should be awarded when there is a predictable injury on a relationship that is legally established. A list of horribles was recited by the court to establish the need limit the liability. Since an action taken in consideration of all such relatives of the victim of the accident would not have been allowed, there was a need for the court to come up with a policy decision as to the appropriate place to set the limit. The line placed the children on the non-recovery side (Saunders,1993).

References

Saunders, K. W. (1992). Informal fallacies in legal argumentation. SCL Rev., 44, 343.

Doss, D. A., Glover Jr., W. H., Goza, R. A., & Wigginton Jr., M. (2014). The foundations of communication in criminal justice systems. CRC Press.

Ramee, N. (2002). Logic And Legal Reasoning: A Guide For Law Students. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://www.unc.edu/~ramckinn/Documents/Nealrameeguide.pdf

Williamson, O. (2016). Master list of logical Fallacies. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm