Does framing eyewitness and documentary evidence as claims mean that they are not really evidence? It is well established that questions of history are considered in light of three main categories of evidence: eyewitness testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. A logical error that is commonly being asserted in this historical debate is the assertion that since eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence are _claims_; therefore, they are not really evidence at all, only _claims_. However, this position is absurd, since every kind of eyewitness testimony can be categorized as a claim of the eyewitness, and every bit of documentary evidence can be categorized as a claim of either the author(s) or the one proffering the evidence in support of some thesis. Consider the example of Socrates. Our knowledge of the historical person of Socrates is based upon less than a half dozen independent documentary sources without any compelling physical evidence or surviving eyewitnesses. From this evidence, most historians agree with the claims that Socrates was a real person and that he taught certain things. Attempts to assert that the documents supporting the claim that Socrates was a real person were not really evidence, but only claims would fall on deaf ears among experts in ancient history, and no one would by the argument that somehow citing these independent arguments was somehow committing a circular fallacy. Also consider how our legal system establishes historical facts. Suppose person A claims person B mugged her and investigators subsequently find and document statements from persons C, D, E, and F who each give eyewitness testimony that person B mugged person A. Would a defense attorneys argument be valid to assert the following? Person Cs testimony is only a claim, it is not evidence. Person Ds testimony is only a claim, it is not evidence. Person Es testimony is only a claim, it is not evidence. Person Fs testimony is only a claim, it is not evidence. Of course not. Testimony of the same event by independent parties is regarded by the legal system as corroborating evidence. Person B might even have a claim of incompetent representation if his attorney made such a ridiculous argument on his behalf, and the trial transcripts would be admissible as documentary evidence of his claim. In our legal system, eyewitnesses must be brought in to testify in person if they are available. But if time and circumstance has rendered them unavailable (deceased usually), documents that recorded their testimony do become admissible as evidence in court proceedings. Such documents may include transcripts of depositions, transcripts of interviews with investigators, and notes and other records of interviews, reports, and statements to investigators and others. The fact that various documents may have been collected and preserved by investigators or attorneys is not seen to invalidate the use of these documents in court proceedings, nor is it seen to invalidate the independence of different original sources documented therein.
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:28:28 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015