Miscarriage Of Justice, Race, and Poor Testimony

Considering a case in which Tom, a black man is alleged to have raped a white woman; Miranda explores how injustice happens within the confines of offering testimony. Tom is a black man living in Alabama accused of raping a white woman. Every detail and evidence that tries to bring out Tom as not the possible suspect are disapproved because of Tom's blackness. Tom has no power to harm anyone using some part of his body, a solid and physical prove that he is not the one who might have raped the white woman. The jury is credibly informed that the man in suspect is Tom since they cannot buy into his testimonies because he is considered "black." The testimony is, in some way, affected by the characteristic features of the person giving the testimony. The testimony does not stand on its own to defend the person because it has been seen as being related to the person, Tom, being black.

Here, Miranda is considerate of the fact that what has come in between the two sets of people, the jury together with the accuser, and Tom's side, is racially motivated. The testimony given is not just a testimony, but it has been altered by the stereotypic perceptions based on the racial differences between the people involved. There is a fight between the racial differences, and has found itself in the court process, affecting the testimony and the decisions offered by the jury. Because of this, the jury finds Tom, the accused, as incredibly guilty. It is the 1930s in Alabama, and a black man has been accused of raping a white woman (Fricker 3). The possibility of the black man surviving the struggle, managed by the white jury, is deemed impossible courtesy of the external characteristics, in this case, something that is known.

Testimonial injustice occurs in different phases within the case offered by Miranda. Characterization of the individual at hand is what has brought about everything concerning the injustice within the justice system. The injustice is characterized by a massive deficit of credibility give to the identity prejudice from the hearer. The person in suspect has been taken to have less credibility as he knowingly embraces. The person is experiencing some form of credibility deficit. In a real life situation, one can take a person t have a certain level of insufficiency because of a certain aspect of life, like being motivated by an external attribute. As much as the person will try to be credible, what is known becomes a hurdle in just trying to bring everything together.

Tom does not have the power to be identified and taken as credible in his evidence. He is certainly innocent, but the jury dismisses his innocence and testimony on one assumption that he is "all negroes lie." Certainly, being a black person has made him powerless, presumably because of what the people, certainly the jury knows. There is no power to be identified as someone who has the capability to give a piece of evidence that cannot be seen as a lie (Crenshaw 12). His personality and characteristic race have played a significant role in dethroning his credibility in front of the jury. In his report, Robinson shows that he knows everything he is trying to convey. He knows he is a Negro and hence he will suffer because of this. He is not able to defend his being a Negro but the idea that Negro people tell lies. Because of this, his testimony is just but he accomplices as a Negro. 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 have the power to cause further injustice.

Robinson has lost confidence in his intellectual abilities. The injustice process is damning and now of any motivation to him. He is fighting to prove what he knows as the true knowledge of what he knows. It is as if the person has been made to prove that he is what whom he is yet he knows well his identity. He has been subjected to a variance of differences, most of which make him have the notion that not all might be well as regards the possibility that he might not be important in any way as compared to others. When people are treated in such a way, they will ultimately lose confidence in what they know. The person may doubt his or her intellectual abilities; this is dangerous to the overall growth process of any individual in the society. It is harmful and can lead to the death of the intellectual powers in person. In most cases, the aspect of suffering from neglect from a "trustful conversation" puts down one's ability to have a steady mind that works with a separation of desires and beliefs. Such a perception is dangerous to the overall capacity of a person to act willingly and within the need to work with others in any situation. It would be almost impossible, taking this scenario, to have a unified effort coming from a collection of Black people and white individuals in any human setup. When such is perpetuated, it just becomes a weapon of division and massive destruction of one or either sides of the divide.

In some way, power can be seen as agential or structural. In any social setup, basic structures enable people and the governments to work harmoniously with little or no conflict. With such structures comes power. With the existence of hierarchies, power rises from the lower rank to the upper one, with certainty that the structure has to be followed all the time. Structural power is offered in some form of a universal plate that outlines different roles and categories of power as required and offered to the people. There is no way in which power can exist without having to be subjected to something and arising from somewhere (Fricker 24). With such structures, justice can be delivered to the people. On the other hand, power can be possessed and carried by an individual in the form of an agent, resulting in agential power. With agential power, the individual carries the power and falls within his jurisdiction unlike with structural power where everything belongs to the structure or level at which it can be offered. In some way, entail power is subjective while structural power is summative. In the Robinson, the agential power bestowed upon those within the perceived higher authority in the society makes them superior to others and feel no pain when committing an injustice. In a structured society, power is proliferated through the different ranks of the structure and very few chances of misuse exist.

Robinsons is identified as a Negro. During this time, the 1930s in Alabama, Negroes were regarded as of the lower ranks in the society. They were treated as slaves and second-hand people. They had little significance in any situation when the white counterparts were present. They were given this identity, certainly because of other elements like the racial difference, the background, the economic power, among others. Robinson, therefore, has lost his personality strength as an individual. Having come from such a society, he is certain that he is not the same as of the other side of the divide. He is competing against what appears to be a difference between his character and personality and that of the jury. He is identified as a Negro and hence has less power. He suffers injustice because of being of low identity power. Identity power, unlike other forms of power, is self-given and self-driven even though it might be influenced externally. Identity power rests upon someone just because of his or her identity. For instance, the natural significance of being a male or a female makes one have or access certain powers and not some others. Other forms of power are universal to all the people, but with identity power, it is specific to a set of people or an individual. As much as it can also fade away justice like the other forms of power, identity power, in everyday life, is essential to human differences. It is based on what people know.

Identity power and other forms of power contribute to justice and injustice in different ways. They operate under the concept of knowledge from among the people. The people are central in proclaiming and propagating the idea that knowledge is fundamental to the overall purposes and functions of the different scales of power. Epistemic injustice arises from the fact that all sorts of injustices are attached to the different aspects of power with the identity of the people playing a critical part. Fricker wants to bring out the possibility that there is a common injustice based on knowledge. Knowledge gives birth to resources, which can be used to give evidence and hence support any form of justice. Injustice has to do with knowledge. Through testimonial justice, Fricker is trying to say that the testimony of an individual can be justified in a wrong way because of characterizing that person. Characterizing an individual is just but a mistake that can be used in a solemn way to bring about injustice to the individual. With hermeneutical injustice, Fricker alleys that Wendy is fundamentally relieved by the eve of knowing the cause of depression in her life. People have never talked about this cause. At the realization by Wendy, she delivers justice to herself, something that has not even come from his/her husband. He is aware of the need to have knowledge of the cause of her depression, and hence know how best to deal with it in life.

Prejudices are many in life. With justice delivery and the cases offered by Fricker, prejudices come from the aspect of racial differences from among the people. The people are important when it comes to managing the ultimate respect to each other. With racial differences, knowing something does not simply mean one will be able to use it as a resource to access justice. Knowing is not enough to beat down differences within the society. Nonetheless, knowing is in itself a source of freedom and redemption. In its basic format, Fricker is trying to the alley that the central cases are just but simple and practical ways in which justice does not happen to the people (Fricker 35). The cases are attached to the social strictures and realms of life. Whatever people experience every day is basic to the need to access justice, something that does not come with ease. Moreover, what the author is trying to relate is the aspect of justice and epistemology. Identities serve to perpetuate individual and social differences. They embody the entire justice system as identifying with certain sets or groups of people. Therefore, it would be rudimentary to say injustice is just a one way of creating social division regarding structures and mechanisms of living.

Works Cited

Crenshaw, Kimberle. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum article. Article 8, Volume 1989, Issue 1. University Press.

Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Internet resource.

Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Kukla, Rebecca, and Mark N. Lance. 'Yo!' and 'Lo!' The Pragmatic Topography of the Space of Reasons. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.

Witt, Charlotte. Feminist Metaphysics: Explorations in the Ontology of Sex, Gender, and Identity. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. Print.