Testimonial Epistemic Injustice in the Courtroom

Abstract

The topic of this thesis is testimonial epistemic injustice in the courtroom context. Testimonial epistemic injustice occurs when someone’s testimony is unduly downgraded (credibility deficit) or unduly upgraded (credibility excess) due to a structural social prejudice held by the listener. Examples of structural social prejudices are prejudices concerning race, gender, class, and degree of education obtained by the testifier. Credibility assessments are influenced by listeners’ biases, the social context of the interaction, and the perceived disposition of the testifier. In this paper, I intend to examine (1) what testimonial epistemic injustice is and (2) what can be done to address testimonial epistemic injustice in courtrooms.