This has been something of an ancillary topic in many discussions of court cases and criminal investigation, claims that a person accused of a crime has to be guilty because they don't act like a not guilty person "should."
The Ur example of this in modern criminology is probably the case of Lindy Chamberlain who was treated with suspension for not acting like a "properly grieving mother" after her 9 week old daughter Azaria was killed by a wild dog.
But subtler versions of this pop up often when lay people discuss court cases, that a person that hadn't committed a crime shouldn't act guilty or shouldn't be that calm or should be more cooperative with authorities or less cooperative with authorities or shouldn't do action X or should do action Y or whatever.
So I ask:
- Is there a specific way that people guilty of crimes specifically act that can be used as meaningful evidence in determining guilt?
- If so is that something a layperson can determine via seeing only short out of context scenes of the person on television?
Now I'm firmly on the "Absolutely not" side of this argument. It's armchair pop psychiatry at best, trumped up mob trial by ordeal at worst. No one should ever have to take a long drop on a short rope because they dared show up to their trial for murdering a loved one dressed in something other than Victorian Mourning Wear and communicated in something other than sobs and wails.
And this seems to be a mostly female thing. I'm sure cases exists but I can't think of a high profile case where a big deal was made out of man not acting properly "not guilty" in the sense we're talking.
The Ur example of this in modern criminology is probably the case of Lindy Chamberlain who was treated with suspension for not acting like a "properly grieving mother" after her 9 week old daughter Azaria was killed by a wild dog.
But subtler versions of this pop up often when lay people discuss court cases, that a person that hadn't committed a crime shouldn't act guilty or shouldn't be that calm or should be more cooperative with authorities or less cooperative with authorities or shouldn't do action X or should do action Y or whatever.
So I ask:
- Is there a specific way that people guilty of crimes specifically act that can be used as meaningful evidence in determining guilt?
- If so is that something a layperson can determine via seeing only short out of context scenes of the person on television?
Now I'm firmly on the "Absolutely not" side of this argument. It's armchair pop psychiatry at best, trumped up mob trial by ordeal at worst. No one should ever have to take a long drop on a short rope because they dared show up to their trial for murdering a loved one dressed in something other than Victorian Mourning Wear and communicated in something other than sobs and wails.
And this seems to be a mostly female thing. I'm sure cases exists but I can't think of a high profile case where a big deal was made out of man not acting properly "not guilty" in the sense we're talking.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1HVrLA9
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire