Logical Fallacies and Their Impact on Criminal Justice

Introduction: What Are Logical Fallacies?

By definition, any argument that contains faulty reasoning is termed a logical fallacy. Most logical fallacies appear psychologically convincing but are logically weak. Most importantly, a logical fallacy leads people to accept certain arguments and conclusions that would ordinarily not be considered valid (Doss et al., 2014). This paper discusses several logical fallacies and how they affect criminal justice.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

The argumentum ad hominem is an argument directed at a particular person rather than at the substance of their claim.

The ad hominem is considered a fallacy because neither the speaker's character nor their circumstances reveal anything about the validity or invalidity of the argument they present, nor about whether their conclusion is true or false. Even people whose characters do not conform to accepted social norms are known to offer valid arguments, and the fact that a speaker's political interests coincide with their conclusion reveals nothing about whether that conclusion is true or false. Ad hominem arguments can be characterized as either abusive or circumstantial. The abusive form attempts to criticize the opponent's character in the hope of transferring the audience's animosity toward the opponent's argument. The circumstantial form does not focus on a character flaw but on the possibility of bias arising from the opponent's circumstances. For instance, the response "What else were you expecting from a communist?" may be considered an abusive ad hominem, because it relies on the hope that the audience has an obvious disregard for all communists and will therefore reject any communist argument. The same statement may also be considered circumstantial if it implies that the opponent's argument was motivated by a desire to advance communist principles (Saunders, 1993).

Argumentum Ad Misericordiam

Under an argumentum ad misericordiam, also known as an appeal to pity, the audience is manipulated into accepting an argument based on the pitiable circumstances of the speaker rather than on the strength of the argument itself. Because there is no logical connection between how much pity one feels for a speaker and the validity of that speaker's arguments, the appeal to pity is classified as an informal fallacy. However, such arguments are accepted by the courts on a regular basis.

For example, in Ryan v. People, the court reduced the sentence handed down to the defendant for hindering government operations from one year to six 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 fully aware that its action was a response to an appeal to pity; nonetheless, it stated clearly that whenever such a 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 further added that "mercy, in its right place, is the characteristic of every appellate court" (Saunders, 1993).