Oral or written argument Essay

Given that the ideas can not be truly and completely explained by words, one have to recognize that every oral or written argument ever told or explained is inherently subjective. Therefore, every fact described by a human is an opinion, and every opinion is somehow a fact. Thusly, every word should be considered from two points of view: from the point of view of fact and from the point of view of opinion. This relates to the testimony before the court as well. Every judge should realize, that even the most honest person can interpret the facts wrongfully or simply mistake. Moreover, even the judge himself is not free from subjectivity, although the level of objectivity is one of the key factors determining his or her professionalism. Therefore, upon examination of the testimony, a judge has to consider it as one fact and witnesses’ probable level of subjectivity as another fact. At that it would be useful to classify the questions put before a witness during examination into two groups. Some of the questions are questions of fact (what’s happened? ), other questions are questions of opinion (do you think that? ). For sure, the second kind of questions includes a greater extent of subjectivity, although the first kind can not be recognized completely objective as well. In order to find out the truth, all the testimonies have to be reviewed in combination. Neither of the testimonies can be absolutely true and accurate. Only consideration of the testimonies and other proofs in the case would allow a judge to create a more or less straight story of the case. Question 2 As a judge, I have to answer several questions in order to determine whether a person with multiple personality disorder should witness or not. Firstly, I have to find out whether a person can witness at all. In order to do that I would call the experts to examine that persons’s mental condition and his or her state at the moment. In case the experts recognize, that the person is principally able to provide a valid testimony, I would further doubt his or her possible words and ask myself a second question: how critical the person’s testimony is for the case and how can it influence my view of the case. My decision can not be bases solely on the testimony of mentally infringed individual, yet his or her testimony may be usefull for clarification of some circumstances. I would rather rely on such witness to determine the facts, than in case I needed his or her opinion. In case I came to a conclusion, that I still need this witness, I would properly examine him or her in the presence of the experts who would observe the individual’s behavior during examination and inform me of possible deviations. Having completed the examination, I would consider how much do the words of the witness conform with other testimonies and proofs in the case. In case I would find no logical controversions, I would consider the words of such witness as a valid testimony. Yet I would keep in mind, that this testimony is provided by a doubdtful witness and critically evaluate this testimony. Works Cited: http://www. boogieonline. com/seeking/know/meaning. html