Eyewitness Testimony and Epistemic Agency
APSE-CEU-IVC Talks
The Philosophy Department of the Central European University, the Institute Vienna Circle and the Unit for Applied Philosophy of Science and Epistemology (of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Vienna) are jointly organizing a series of talks this term
Date: 09/12/2021
Time: 15h00
Online Plattform: The meeting will be online via Zoom | Talks in Philosophy of Science and Epistemology PSE
Access:
https://univienna.zoom.us/j/95738643015?pwd=UFFsKzFxaHJVUEtWc1dPWEFrWmxyUT09
You can also log into our meetings through the Zoom application (rather than by clicking the link above), by using the following credentials:
Meeting-ID: 957 3864 3015
Password: 559398
No registered accounts are required, it's enough to click on the link and enter your name. Chrome or Firefox browsers work best.
Abstract:
Eyewitness testimony is a powerful form of evidence, and this is especially true in the United States criminal legal system. At the same time, eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing. In this paper, I offer a close examination of this tension between the enormous epistemic weight that eyewitness testimony is afforded in the United States criminal legal system and the fact that there are important questions about its reliability as a source of evidence. I argue that lineups and interrogations often function by way of extracting testimony from an eyewitness through practices that are manipulative, deceptive, or coercive. I then show that when testimony that is extracted in these ways is given an unwarranted excess of credibility, the eyewitness in question is the victim of what I call agential testimonial injustice. I conclude that since much of the testimony of eyewitnesses is both extracted and given an excess of credibility, there is a fairly widespread form of epistemic injustice being inflicted upon testifiers in the United States criminal legal system. This calls for reforms along both dimensions—lineups and interrogations should go through a witness’s epistemic agency, rather than bypassing, exploiting, or undermining it, and the weight of the resulting testimony should be viewed in the broader context of its significant fallibility.