His audience sees him differently apart from what he is trying to sell to them. They do not accept his testimony because of what they know which has acted as a mental block to them. The non-acceptance of the report is because the audience harbors a distorting prejudice that is related to the social identity of Robinson. He is prejudiced for being a black person. Certainly, this is happening in the 1930s in Alabama, a time when the race was a big consideration in the society. The society is differentiated regarding who controls the others. The audience appears to be in control of most things happening and surrounding Robinson. He is regarded as of a low social order; he cannot rise to a higher level so that he can make considerable and genuine testimonies. This affects everything he does and accepts, even everything that he tries to sell to the people. Certainly, he is prejudiced based on the racial elements. Such prejudices are hard to deal with because of the social structures and working in non-doxastic levels.
Prejudice is certain in this case now that Robinson is not taken as fairly and equally as another white person would be taken. He is taken as a simple label of Negro lies. He is not given the full acceptance and capacity together with space to bring out what makes him never guilty. He is deemed as guilty even before he has to say anything. The jury has an external eye and appears to be skewed by other factors when they are reaching out to conclusions. In any justice system, this cannot be deemed as necessary as justice has already been dethroned. Justice has been thwarted with what the audience knows about Robinson. As a result, the possibility of serving justice diminishes. He is prejudiced to have certain characteristics that in some way make him guilty (Witt 35). He faces all sorts of unfairness based on this element of race. The accusations directed at him are elemental in that they specify and make decisive attributes to what he is as a person and as the accused. In everyday life, people face different levels of prejudice. The individual differences lead to massive changes that signify and identify people in accordance to different platforms, most of which are susceptible to injustices. Therefore, Fricker is trying to bring out the ultimate material that covers what is essentially the rock of prejudice in any society.
The victim, and certainly us, are harmed in some way by the testimony injustice and prejudice. Robinson is denied the fact that he can know, and that he knows. Such injustice simply makes one be seen and taken as not knowing something even if he or she is comprehensively sure that he or she knows. This injustice takes away what we know and gives us the realm of doubt and possibility of not knowing (Kukla and Mark 63). Such a capacity of knowing is essential to human nature. Harm is also an epistemological and practical way. Within the realm of practicality, Robinson has been subjected to the lowest rank in the social hierarchy. This is what happens to all of the members with such attributes. Such injustice is a dividing power. It separates and puts people in such different levels of the society. It gives strength and power based on the hierarchies, certainly with the higher ranks given more power and control over the lower level ranks. As much as such injustice is there, hierarchies will be there in the society. These hierarchies will be very influential and even…
Thus while an interviewer may simply be trying to pin down additional details of an incident (for example), the eyewitness may believe that she or he is being challenged about the accuracy of his or her memory and statement and begin (again, most likely unconsciously and not in any attempt to commit perjury) to shift answers to coincide with what the witness believes the interviewer want to hear (Poole
A vastly accepted principle of the justice system is that bringing the guilty perpetrators to justice. Consequently, the danger of a guilty person remaining free dominated public attention (Bjerk & Helland, 2018). However, the justice system has been flawed for robbing of life experiences and freedom of wrongfully convicted individuals (Gould & Leo, 2010). The flaws in the justice system have attracted public opinion and research interest. Empirical interest in
There are many of these individuals, and it is time that this is changed. Parents often look away from these kinds of problems, or they spend their time in denial of the issue because they feel that their child will not be harmed by parental involvement with drugs or alcohol. Some parents have parents that were/are addicts themselves, and some are so busy with their lives that they do not