The court system of the United States is controversial in its decision making and basis for law. Rulings constantly come under scrutiny for different factors relevant to the application of law and opinions of court justices. The way these hearings decide on certain opinions and rulings comes from attorneys using evidence to portray the strength of what they are trying to prove. The most common source of evidence used in the court of law is the eye witness account.
Attorneys will do anything in their power to convince a grand jury to support their case. The portrayal of evidence is the best way to do so. It is hard not to be convinced by forensic evidence or photographic and video footage. But what seems to be most convincing is the testimonies given by real human beings who may be connected to a case. Most of these witnesses make claims about things they have heard, things they know about a particular individual, or things they may have seen. While this practice is used more than any other in the court of law, it seems to be the most unreliable.
Before witnesses take the stand to present their knowledge on a case, they swear on the bible to speak nothing but the truth. This is meant to provide the court with a truthful and accurate source of evidence, but only by assuming this person no longer possesses the willingness to lie after swearing on the bible. This is another flaw in the court system, since there are no immediate punishments for lying in court, even after swearing on the bible. What the court must consider is that the witness must support their own case as well, which will lead them to say anything which does so, even if it is a blatant fallacy.
One case pertaining to false eye witness accounts is the case of Bill Clinton, who lied under oath about his affairs with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was thought of as a reliable eye witness but felt compelled to lie because it helped his case and saw no immediate castigation. I feel the best case to portray the lack of credibility held by eye witness accounts is the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006. In this case, an African American female college student, Crystal Mangum, who worked part time as a dancer and escort, accused members of the Duke lacrosse team of raping her at a party. To facilitate her lies, the Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was to soon run for new office, pushed for the prosecution of these Duke students in order to gain the African American vote and help his chances at being elected.
Crystal Mangum was a just another witness taking advantage of the flawed court system. She wanted to support her case in her search for money and knew that lying under oath would bring no immediate reprimand. Thus she lied about the actions of the students and was supported in doing so.
Based on the lies and utterly false accounts of Mangum, a “reliable witness,” three students were temporarily suspended from Duke University, the 2006 lacrosse season was cancelled, and the team’s coach was forced to resign. Fortunately, over time, the court was able to see obvious discrepancies between certain alibis and tests, and determine the true innocence of those accused.
While eye witness accounts can provide crucial information in determining the outcome of a case, they should not be relied upon so heavily. Hard evidence that can be proven to be fact should be the ultimate factors in determining case rulings. It is an unfortunate part of the court system that when we rely on the honesty of people we often fall very short of finding the truth.
Crystal Gail Mangum: Profile of the Duke Rape Accuser. Fox News. 11 April 2007.
Beard, Aaron (2007-08-31). "Judge Finds Duke Prosecutor in Comtempt". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-09-03.
Duke accuser lying, second stripper says. MSNBC. 13 Oct 2006.
"Prosecutor Mike Nifong Removed From Duke Case". CBS News. 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
No comments:
Post a Comment