The arguer proves or establishes something, but not what he
said he would prove. In the example given above, surely proof of a
previous bad record is a far cry from proof of guilt in the offences
charged. Proof of a bad record is 'inconsequential' - of no consequence.
If bad record proves guilt, then for every crime there are millions
of guilty people. Inconsequent Argument differs from Diversion in that
in the latter nothing is proved, whereas in the former something has
been proven, though not what the arguer was expected to prove.
Prosecuting attorney: 'The defendant is charged with
assault and attempted robbery. There can be no doubt of this man's
guilt. In the past ten years he has been convicted thirteen times on
different charges of forgery, theft, and rape. (The prosecutor then
goes into each of these cases in detail. He passes to the jurors
documents which support what he has said about the defendant's record.)
The sickening record that I have exhibited speaks for itself. Gentlemen,
I ask for a verdict of guilty.'
