Trials, inquiries and hearings, much like scientific investigations, benefit from evidence: the more the better. But what happens when objective evidence is lacking or non-existent? In science, you conclude nothing until you do have the evidence. In judgments involving human activity you have another option: choosing among conflicting claims based on the credibility of witnesses and protagonists.
Right now we have quite the selection of proceedings that are exactly in this state:
Who do you believe? When politics gets involved there is a tendency for us to gravitate toward the party whose political affiliation matches our own. For the politically active, the attraction can be so strong as to totally overturn sensibility. Unfortunately this is a poor way to get at the truth, if that is what one is after.
We are therefore subjected to attempts of the opposing parties to build a record of past credible conduct, or misconduct. They strive to show a record, both private and public, of acting honestly and with integrity, with the implication that past performance is indicative of behaviour in the present matter under investigation.
Like most people I have had to perform these types of judgments, and I know just how terribly difficult it can be. Whether it's interviewing a job candidate, questioning a political campaigner, or asking a child if that's what really happened, you have to discern between honesty, including when the person being questioned is nervous and under stress, and a liar who may be practiced at the art and prepared with believable answers. It ain't easy.
For this reason it is interesting to watch the questioners (lawyers, judges and MPs) in the above-mentioned proceedings to see how they chip away at the testimony of persons when that testimony is all there is to judge. Especially in cases where those questioners are partisan.
He said, she said... now choose who you believe is telling the truth.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment