Testimony

TESTIMONY

A testimony is a special type of authoritative statement, see authority:

– Preconditions:

        • The issue I under discussion is related to an event E. Criminal or not, E has an exceptional character.
        • Person W was in a position to see or hear something about the event E in question.
        • Some discussants have limited or no access to E,
        • Thus, in the discussion I, W qualifies as a witness to E.

– Essential Conditions: Witnesses are subject to a special duty of truthfulness:

        • W says T.
        • T is relevant to I.
        • [In justice, T swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.]
        • T is presumed to be true

1. Criticisms of Testimony

Discourses against testimony of any kind are based on two options, the examination of the fact, the questioning of the witness. These discourses can be schematized as follows.

– The fact is in itself is not credible, not possible, not probable.

– The witness is not credible because:

        • He could not have seen or heard what he claims to have seen or heard
        • He is partial, biased, or lying; he has been manipulated; he has been corrupted.
        • He is not competent about tin the matter.
        • In other cases where his testimony could be verified, it turned out to be false.
        • Other witnesses say otherwise.
        • He is the only witness, so his testimony is not acceptable (testis unus, testis nullus, “one testimony, no testimony”).

Testimony and criticism of testimony play a particularly important social role in matters of law and faith. They also play an important private role in everyday matters, as they underlie the narratives of witnesses to critical life events.

2. Testimony in Rhetorical Argumentation

In the Topics, Cicero clearly posits judicial testimony as part of the data on which the court must rely, as opposed to rhetorical evidence, see “technical” and “non-technical”. According to the modern democratic concept of testimony, witnesses are in principle accorded the same status; they and their testimony are subject to the same critical scrutiny.
The ancient rhetorical concept of testimony is quite different. According to Cicero, in Roman legal practice, the weight of a testimony is a priori proportional to the social authority granted to the witness.

For our present purpose, we define testimony as everything that is brought in from some external circumstance in order to gain conviction. Now it is not every sort of person who is worthy of consideration as a witness. To gain conviction, authority is sought; but authority is given by one’s nature or by circumstances. Authority from one’s nature or character depends largely on virtue; in circumstances there are many things which lend authority, such as talent, wealth, age, good luck, skill, experience, necessity, and even occasional fortuitous events. (Cicero, Top., XIX, 73; Hubbell, p. 439)

In this quotation, the “circumstances” mentioned include basic elements that determine the social status of the witness. “Necessity” refers to testimony obtained under duress and torture. The expression “fortuitous events” refers to emotional speech, emotion being considered a guarantee of truth.

In the Roman world, in fact, testimony was actually guaranteed not only by a thorough examination of the witness and the alleged fact but also by a preliminary oath and the precise social status of the witness, if a citizen, or by the amount of pain the witness could endure, if a slave. The use of torture to obtain true information is now morally condemned, and practically recognized as an ineffective means of obtaining information, “Beer, cigarettes work better than waterboarding”[1].

The concept of testimony in the ancient texts covers a wider field than personal testimony about a particular fact. Testimony can also guarantee principles, and in this case, the witnesses are “the ancient authors, the oracles, the proverbs, the sayings of the illustrious contemporaries” (Vidal 2000, p. 60).

3. Witness in matters of faith

The capacity of truth to be more compelling than any kind of pain is inherent in the Christian tradition of martyrdom. The word martyr comes from the Greek word for witness; the martyr is a witness to the divine word. Martyrdom is a kind of torture; truth is confirmed through torture. As Pascal says: “I believe only those stories whose witnesses let themselves be slaughtered” (Meditations, p. 117).

The validation of testimony by martyrdom leads to a paradox. People have been tortured and killed for a variety of beliefs and values; Giordano Bruno for example is a “martyr of atheism”. Therefore, the proposal must be reversed, and, according to Saint Augustine, “it is not the punishment but the cause that makes the martyr.”[2] If the cause is bad (heresy), the so-called “martyr” is an offender and has been punished as such.

4. Confession and Testimony

Denials are weak arguments for innocence, but confessions are strong arguments for guilt. If it contradicts a denial, a testimony is believed over and above the denial. Consider, however, the case of a person who confesses to murder against a trustworthy witness who declares that he materially could not have committed the crime he just confessed to.

Confession is a testimony against oneself, but should confessions be trusted over contrary testimony? Can I validly testify to myself, positively or negatively?
The Evangelist John reports that Christ said no, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.” (John 5:31)[3]; see relations, §2 Reflexivity.

5. The Paradox of « Weak » Testimony

The Latin word testis means “witness” and “testicle”. In Roman culture, as in some contemporary cultures, testimony is reserved for men; a woman’s testimony, if allowed at all, is considered weaker and less credible than a man’s. A single testimony of a man for example, has the same value as the testimony of several women.

Consequently, if a text claims only the testimony of a woman to support a fact, it can be argued that this is indirect evidence for the authenticity of that fact, because, if the fact were invented, the text would have claimed to be supported by the testimony of men. This argument is developed from the Gospels, which, in reference to the resurrection of Christ, mention that women discovered the empty tomb. The cultural weakness of their testimony is taken as indirect strong evidence for the fact.

[1] “Mattis to Trump: beer, cigarettes work better than waterboarding”. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/23/mattis-trump-beer-cigarettes-work-better-waterboarding.html (05/07/2017)

[2] Augustine, Second Discourse on Psalm 34. In St; Augustine on the Psalms. Trans. and An. by S. Hegbin, and F. Korrigan, Vol. II, Ps. 30-37. New York & Mahwah: The Newman Press, p. 220.

[3] New King James Version (NKJV); Quoted after https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5%3A31&version=NKJV (05/05/2017)