![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The meaning of "knowledge"
Hypothetical:
In Town X, a burglary is reported to the police. They investigate, and their investigation leads to Bob, who has previous convictions for that sort of thing. They find the stolen goods at Bob's house, Bob is questioned, he confesses, it goes to trial, Bob pleads guilty, the jury is convinced by the evidence, and Bob is sentenced accordingly.
In fact, Bob had not committed the burglary. In fact, he had a provable alibi - he was out committing another burglary (of equivalent severity) elsewhere in town at the time. The original burglary was done by a friend of his, and he was just storing the goods at his house. Given that demonstrating his alibi wouldn't have saved him any prison time, and would have involved fingering his accomplices (which would have damaged his standing in the criminal underworld), he felt that the simplest thing to do was to take the rap for the original burglary.
This is all to illustrate a philosophical point about the word "know" (and "knowledge" etc). A poll:
(ETA Note that the previous convictions don't count when I'm asking whether the legal system knew Bob had committed burglary... I meant to ask "...committed burglary on that day" or something similar. This ETA is before anyone but me has answered this, so all the results reflect this ETA)
In Town X, a burglary is reported to the police. They investigate, and their investigation leads to Bob, who has previous convictions for that sort of thing. They find the stolen goods at Bob's house, Bob is questioned, he confesses, it goes to trial, Bob pleads guilty, the jury is convinced by the evidence, and Bob is sentenced accordingly.
In fact, Bob had not committed the burglary. In fact, he had a provable alibi - he was out committing another burglary (of equivalent severity) elsewhere in town at the time. The original burglary was done by a friend of his, and he was just storing the goods at his house. Given that demonstrating his alibi wouldn't have saved him any prison time, and would have involved fingering his accomplices (which would have damaged his standing in the criminal underworld), he felt that the simplest thing to do was to take the rap for the original burglary.
This is all to illustrate a philosophical point about the word "know" (and "knowledge" etc). A poll:
(ETA Note that the previous convictions don't count when I'm asking whether the legal system knew Bob had committed burglary... I meant to ask "...committed burglary on that day" or something similar. This ETA is before anyone but me has answered this, so all the results reflect this ETA)
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 9
Did the legal system know that Bob had committed burglary?
Was the outcome just?
View Answers
Yes - Bob committed a burglary and served a sentence for burglary, your point?
4 (57.1%)
No - Bob was punished for a crime he did not commit.
2 (28.6%)
I don't believe in punishing people for burglary anyway, so No
1 (14.3%)
Furthermore
View Answers
This is a completely ridiculous hypothetical and the legal system wouldn't have acted that way
0 (0.0%)
This is reasonably realistic, at least in terms of how the legal system acted
2 (25.0%)
Ummmm...
6 (75.0%)
no subject
I want to say that the outcome was not just, but not for the reason written beside the 'No' radio button. It is unjust because Bob's friend who did commit this burglary has not gone down for it, and presumably will not do so in future because the police think the crime is solved. That seems to me a much more convincing argument for injustice than hairsplitting about whether it's just for Bob to serve the right length of sentence despite the wrong things being said about it in court.
(Meanwhile, the poor police are off on a wild-goose chase for the perpetrator of the burglary that Bob really committed, since the actual culprit now has what appears to be an ironclad alibi!)
no subject
no subject
I think my answer is still no, though. Suppose his alibi had been that he'd been out elsewhere committing murder. He might still have confessed to the burglary (on the basis that it carried a lighter sentence and would act as an alibi should he come under suspicion for the murder), and then it would clearly not be true that the legal system knew he had committed burglary on that day (because he didn't, and lied and said he did). No evidence relating to where Bob really was is involved in the legal system's justification for believing he committed burglary, so I think it's reasonable to say that the question of whether its belief constitutes knowledge ought not to depend on where he really was either.
This is one of those situations in which a belief is both justified (in that the legal system has good reason for thinking it), and true, but still not knowledge because the justification doesn't connect up with the truth – the justification is in error, but the erroneously derived fact turns out to be true anyway for a different reason. Like this incident.
no subject