Miranda Fricker's 'Central Case' of Testimonial Injustice

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...
...

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…