The Use of Witness Testimony in Criminal Trials. The American legal system is built on the adversarial process, where both objective evidence (documents, physical evidence) and subjective witness testimony are presented and cross-examined. The right to confront witnesses (as discussed in Crawford v. Washington) ensures that subjective accounts are scrutinized alongside factual evidence before a judge or jury decides the outcome.
Reconstructing Memories
“The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them.
On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.”
Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.”
From: “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts”, Hal Arkowitz and Scott Lilienfeld. Scientific American magazine, January 8, 2009.
Didactics
Many German literary texts have a didactic element, aiming to educate readers about the dangers of unchecked conflict and the value of peace. They often present conflict as a process that can be understood, analyzed, and, ultimately, transformed. This aligns with the German peacebuilding approach, which emphasizes interest reconciliation, addressing structural causes, and creating conditions for sustainable, peaceful development.
“Face the music.”
“Face the music.” Implies confronting criticism or accusations directly, rather than avoiding or deflecting them.
Reality TV
One of the most popular genres of television in the U.S. is reality tv. In 2001, two of the top ten most popular primetime television shows in America were reality tv shows, compared to six in 2011.
Many of these shows focus on conflict and personal drama as their main premises. Even when the show’s premise is about something unrelated to the dispute, such as singing on the “X Factor” or cooking on “Top Chef”, the actual episodes invariably focus on the conflicts between the cast members and/or their family and friends at home.
In 2011, an American reality TV show H8R filmed various celebrities as they confronted people who were critical of their success. It was marketed as giving celebrities a chance to try to change the minds of the people who hated them. The primary appeal of this show was that it would allow these conflicts to be discussed publicly.
“Let’s clear the air.”
“Let’s clear the air.” Suggests addressing conflict or misunderstanding openly, often in a group or face-to-face setting.
private confessions
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne: The novel explores the consequences of adultery in Puritan New England. Community leaders and townspeople act as moral judges, considering both public evidence and private confessions as they mete out social punishment and reconciliation. The book highlights how American society has historically balanced objective facts (the visible scarlet letter) and subjective testimony (personal guilt, confession) in resolving moral and social conflicts.
Erin Brockovich
Erin Brockovich (2000): A legal assistant investigates a company accused of contaminating a town’s water supply. The film shows the process of collecting documents, interviewing witnesses, and building a case that combines both objective facts and personal stories. The resolution depends on both documentary evidence and the lived experiences of affected residents, reflecting the American balance of facts and testimony.
“Give them a fair hearing.”
“Give them a fair hearing.”Means to listen to each side’s arguments or explanations openly and impartially.
Schlichter
The process of Schlichtung – arbitration, mediation, conciliation – is a bit different in every case. To get a sense for the process it is helpful to take a look at the Mediationsgesetz – mediation law, for there is actually a law in Germany supporting out-of-court arbitration.
The law states clearly that the Schlichter takes a neutral position during the mediation. She or he is to lead the conflict parties to a consensual (both agree freely) resolution of the conflict, so as to avoid the need for a court case.
The Schlichter speaks with each party separately in order to reconstruct the conflict as objectively as possible. But what does “objective” actually mean? The mediation law does not answer that question. It is the job of the Schlichter, typically via a long process, to find the truth.
The one conflict party tries to prove the guilt of the other party. That party, in turn, does their best to prove lack of guilt. The mediator does her best to get as objective a picture of the situation as possible.