Philosophy in Court.
I'm a big fan of Johnny Depp movies. Obviously "The Pirates of the carribian" are the favourites. And Captain Jack sparrow has a noble conduct than anyone else I believe due to the fact that he did not want to hide that he is mischievious as well as canny. Maybe he is a robber who didn't want to lie. So, I followed Johnny Depp devorce case. Mainly because youtube suggested me everytime I opened the app, and secondly it was genuinely interesting. I will point out three interesting facts about the Johnny Depp case.
Fact One: Who is the lier?
First, just only few minutes into the trail I was thinking what is even there to trail? I could even tell who is acting and who is not, just by looking at faces! I am sure I am not the only one who felt this. That is a whole lot prejudice to judge a book by the cover, that is not how courts handle the matters. The facts should be proven beyond doubt. Hence we had a chance to witness a great film of Johnny second only to Pirates of the carribien In material for a laugh!
Fact Two: Who has a hidden Agenda?
Secondly there were great examples of hidden agendas. Sometimes we appear we are there for nothing. But if you are somewhere just in this second, that is because you expect something in return, unless you are a seeker of nothing. I am sure only handful of them are there for each continent. Otherwise we are pretty normal human beings.
When the former TMZ member on the witness stand, defence lawyer questioned him asking "Are you here for your fifteen minutes of fame?". He thought about this for a moment and at the end he said, "Well, if that is the case I can say the same about you, by taking the case, you were searching for the same fame". And that was true! Everybody laughed and admired his sharp wisdom. And I see that statement can even be generalised. We can say everyone in that courtroom that day was for some gain. For cameramen it was a great coverage of their lifetime. For everyone seated they appeared in television or media. Unless someone was there without a conscious awareness of their presense (pretty much meaning either dementic or in a coma), everyone was gaining something, financial or mental in nature. So, it was a strong statement.
For that matter if someone says they are there for nothing I would say, just know that they are liers. Teachers teach, lawyers appear in court, Judges become Judges, and social workers become social workers because they have some gain. You go to cinema to entertain, you go to supermarket because you have a need to buy, and you scratch your back to relive an itch! Sometimes some even do not know there are hidden agendas. Lovers love and preachers preach politicians rule beacuse of the gains. Its very very very rare to find no gain moments in our lives. So, knowing this fact will help yourself atleast to be true to yourself. And as for proper conduct we might have to appear saints sometimes.
Fact three: Understanding Hearsay
Thirdly hearsay. Lets assume Sally in the witness stand say "Robert said to me he saw Maggie got in a taxi with Tom". In this case scenario unless Robert is in the court the statement cannot be taken as evidence. It is something the witness did not witness directly. So it is a "hearsay".
In the Jonney Depp trail I saw whenever there was a statement by a witness often this would be objected by the opposition lawyer and most common reason being it is a hearsay. As a philosopher I can enumerate the logic behind this.
If we assume witness is saying true in the first place, why would he or she lie about what they hear and not what they see? Meaning, someone can equally lie about what they hear and what they see. No matter what, subjectivity of the witnessess statement cannot be eliminated. If we assume the witness is saying true when they say something they saw, we cannot assume they say something false when they say hearsay.
Maybe it is the fact that court only can allow one persons subjective error not two in a row. (If you look at a circuit, resistance will be added if two resistors in series, but in parallal, it will reduce the overall resistance of the system -> little bit of electronics :) So that subjective errors would be multiplied if it happens. To understand this subjective error, I have written a previous article. Again this is coming from a Judge and it goes, "people generally see what they looking for and hear what they listen for". Which basically means two persons observing same incident see two things not one, and both of them are equally true.
Does this prove as a fact that courts can never find the truth? Only philosophers can? Or everything they prove in courts is with false witnesses of relative truths?
I am sure about one thing, I will never want to be in a court, which tries to prove a truth which is not there objectively!
Comments