Difference between revisions of "Impeaching credibility"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created & populated. Needs love and more wikification.)
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<hide>
 +
[[page type::article]]
 +
</hide>
 
== About ==
 
== About ==
 +
[[Impeaching credibility]] is an attack on the [[credibility]] of an [[authority]] or witness. This can be either a valid or invalid form of [[argument]], depending on the circumstances:
  
'''Impeaching credibility''' is an attack on the ''credibility'' of an [[argument from authority|authority]] or witness based on the knowledge or truthfulness.  While it does not of itself directly challenge the claims of a witness, it can be useful in identifying sources whose statements are either not entered into consideration, or which require independent substantiation before given consideration.
+
* If the target's statements are being used as evidence because no [[hierarchy of evidence|better forms of evidence]] are available, then the target's credibility is relevant, and an attack on the target's credibility is therefore also relevant/valid.
 
+
* If the target's statements are an argument based on other evidence, then an attack on the target's credibility is irrelevant because it does not [[address the substance]] of the target's argument. This is a form of [[association fallacy]].
 
 
== Forms of Impeachment ==
 
  
 +
It is also reasonable (if not ''directly'' logical) to dismiss a target's arguments without examining them if the target past history of inventing facts or using bad logic in the deriving of conclusions from agreed facts (as in [[trolling]] and the [[Gish gallop]]).
 +
== Forms ==
 
=== Bias ===
 
=== Bias ===
 
 
Particularly, relationship to the parties in a conflict, or financial interest in the outcome.
 
Particularly, relationship to the parties in a conflict, or financial interest in the outcome.
 
 
 
=== Inconsistent statements ===  
 
=== Inconsistent statements ===  
 
 
Prior statements or comments in conflict with current testimony.
 
Prior statements or comments in conflict with current testimony.
 
 
 
=== Character ===   
 
=== Character ===   
 
 
A demonstration of "bad" character as regards truthfulness.
 
A demonstration of "bad" character as regards truthfulness.
 
 
 
=== Competency ===   
 
=== Competency ===   
 
 
Capacity to witness or judge evidence.
 
Capacity to witness or judge evidence.
 
 
 
=== Contradiction ===   
 
=== Contradiction ===   
 
 
Inconsistencies ''within the present discussion.''
 
Inconsistencies ''within the present discussion.''
 
 
 
=== Omission ===   
 
=== Omission ===   
 
 
Especially discussion or testimony which includes facts not included in a prepared written statement or summary.  The key is to show that the subject is aware of the information and is aware that it is important enough to be included.
 
Especially discussion or testimony which includes facts not included in a prepared written statement or summary.  The key is to show that the subject is aware of the information and is aware that it is important enough to be included.
 +
==United States==
 +
Under the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, ''any'' party may attack the credibility of ''any'' witness.  The "BICCC" mnemonic guides evidence:  bias, inconsistent statement, character, competency, and contradiction.<ref name=Zavitsanos2007/>
 +
== External Links ==
  
 +
=== Reference ===
  
 +
* Wikipedia: {{l/wp|Witness impeachment}}
  
== In US Law ==
+
==Sources==
 
+
<references>
Under the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, ''any'' party may attack the credibility of ''any'' witness. The "BICCC" mnemonic guides evidence:  bias, inconsistent statement, character, competency, and contradiction.
+
<ref name=Zavitsanos2007>[http://azalaw.com/pubs/zavitsanos/E.pdf Credibility and Impeachment], presentation by John Zavitsanos, 2007, University of Houston Law Foundation.</ref>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
== References ==
 
 
 
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 
 
== External Resources ==
 
 
* http <colon> <slash> <slash> azalaw.com/pubs/zavitsanos/E.pdf Credibility and Impeachment,
 
presentation by John Zavitsanos, 2007, University of Houston Law Foundation.
 
* [[Wikipedia]]: https <colon> <slash> <slash> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment Witness impeachment
 

Latest revision as of 11:16, 2 March 2015

About

Impeaching credibility is an attack on the credibility of an authority or witness. This can be either a valid or invalid form of argument, depending on the circumstances:

  • If the target's statements are being used as evidence because no better forms of evidence are available, then the target's credibility is relevant, and an attack on the target's credibility is therefore also relevant/valid.
  • If the target's statements are an argument based on other evidence, then an attack on the target's credibility is irrelevant because it does not address the substance of the target's argument. This is a form of association fallacy.

It is also reasonable (if not directly logical) to dismiss a target's arguments without examining them if the target past history of inventing facts or using bad logic in the deriving of conclusions from agreed facts (as in trolling and the Gish gallop).

Forms

Bias

Particularly, relationship to the parties in a conflict, or financial interest in the outcome.

Inconsistent statements

Prior statements or comments in conflict with current testimony.

Character

A demonstration of "bad" character as regards truthfulness.

Competency

Capacity to witness or judge evidence.

Contradiction

Inconsistencies within the present discussion.

Omission

Especially discussion or testimony which includes facts not included in a prepared written statement or summary. The key is to show that the subject is aware of the information and is aware that it is important enough to be included.

United States

Under the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, any party may attack the credibility of any witness. The "BICCC" mnemonic guides evidence: bias, inconsistent statement, character, competency, and contradiction.[1]

External Links

Reference

Sources

<references> [1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Credibility and Impeachment, presentation by John Zavitsanos, 2007, University of Houston Law Foundation.