On July 30, 2012 three women from the punk group called Pussy Riot, Yekaterina Samutsevich, Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were in court on the charge of hooliganism for disrupting a church service in Moscow 's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Although the evidence is enough to put away the three women the court acted unjust and biased throughout the whole trial denying Pussy Riot a fair trial. Since the Russian court system did not allow a fair and just trial for the members of Pussy Riot they should be allowed a new trial that is free of corruption. The trial that the Pussy Riot had endured in 2012 was riddled with fallacies from the prosecution and their witnesses.
From the start of the trail the three members of Pussy Riot were …show more content…
Sokologorskaya is described as “a fifty-two-year-old women with a tired, apologetic face” (Gessen 170). This witness could have played out well for the prosecution if the prosecution had prepared the witness better because the witness testimony was riddled with fallacies that could have helped Pussy Riot if Pussy Riot had a fair trial. The first fallacy that in the Sokologorskaya testimony was a tu quoque, which is a fallacy that is an opponent 's argument has no value because the opponent does not follow his or her own advice. This shows up when Sokologorskaya starts to discuss how no one of the female sex is allowed on the soleas which holds all the oil lamps and candles, but earlier she has admitted to going up on the soleas to light candle and to clean oil lamps. Her early testimonial contradicts what she said later causing that argument to be null and void. Another instance of a fallacy to appear would be when she was praying is praying and in one instance she says she heard a word and then later she admits to not hearing anything. This fallacy is a false dilemma and a false dilemma fallacy is when the opponent argument has two alternatives and in this case she either heard a word or did not hear anything. Sokologorskaya had much more to say about the incident, but most of what she had said could clearly fit under a fallacy. With this witness testimonial the fallacy was abundant showing that the witness could not …show more content…
The court could have found that Pussy Riot was innocence because of the witness testimony being riddled with fallacies. With this argument Pussy Riot should have had another chance in court, but since the courts were shady from the start a redo would never happen. Since the courts lie under the Russian government this affects the worldview of Russia. This shows that Russia will change something even though everyone is looking under a looking glass and this proves that Russia is a risky partnership in the
From the start of the trail the three members of Pussy Riot were …show more content…
Sokologorskaya is described as “a fifty-two-year-old women with a tired, apologetic face” (Gessen 170). This witness could have played out well for the prosecution if the prosecution had prepared the witness better because the witness testimony was riddled with fallacies that could have helped Pussy Riot if Pussy Riot had a fair trial. The first fallacy that in the Sokologorskaya testimony was a tu quoque, which is a fallacy that is an opponent 's argument has no value because the opponent does not follow his or her own advice. This shows up when Sokologorskaya starts to discuss how no one of the female sex is allowed on the soleas which holds all the oil lamps and candles, but earlier she has admitted to going up on the soleas to light candle and to clean oil lamps. Her early testimonial contradicts what she said later causing that argument to be null and void. Another instance of a fallacy to appear would be when she was praying is praying and in one instance she says she heard a word and then later she admits to not hearing anything. This fallacy is a false dilemma and a false dilemma fallacy is when the opponent argument has two alternatives and in this case she either heard a word or did not hear anything. Sokologorskaya had much more to say about the incident, but most of what she had said could clearly fit under a fallacy. With this witness testimonial the fallacy was abundant showing that the witness could not …show more content…
The court could have found that Pussy Riot was innocence because of the witness testimony being riddled with fallacies. With this argument Pussy Riot should have had another chance in court, but since the courts were shady from the start a redo would never happen. Since the courts lie under the Russian government this affects the worldview of Russia. This shows that Russia will change something even though everyone is looking under a looking glass and this proves that Russia is a risky partnership in the