Response to Aristotle’s The Art of Rhetoric

I believe what Aristotle is trying to say when he states that truth does not always persuade is that there are many factors to consider when engaging in rhetoric. Aristotle notes a certain category of speech called non-essentials is often employed in courts for the purpose of swaying the person who judges a case. These non-essentials can range from prejudice, and pity to anger and are used not as factual evidence, but as personal appeals to the figure in charge of a decision. Non-essentials are often used in place of facts and, as Aristotle believes, have no place in court systems. This is actually why Aristotle believes that the legislative side of a law should carry much more weight than the decision making process (in regards to the law) that the judge and the jury sentence upon.

The absence of truth can also come into play when considering the education level of the audience. While a litigator may present purely factual and supportive claims, if the audience (or jury) is not mentally competent in understanding the facts, they will not necessarily be effective. In this case, persuasion is necessary, especially modes of persuasion which are based off of concepts that everyone can grasp.

One great example I can submit that clearly illustrates the lack of power factual information can carry at times comes from my time as a juror in the Alaska State Court system. The case at hand dealt with whether or not a woman was intoxicated while driving a vehicle. She was pulled over when she arrived at her house, refused a breathalyzer, and hours later took the test at the local holding facility and barely passed under the legal limit. The strongest and most convincing point (to me at least) was an expert who came in and showed that, without doubt, through retroactively grading her levels of intoxication, she was clearly drunk when she was behind the wheel. Now, the explanation the scientist gave was by no means simple, but it proved an important point. However, since there were a handful of jurors who did not understand the point the scientist was making, they choice to either discard or ignore the notion. Subsequently, the defendant went free on a hung jury.