We tend to think another person\u2019s character helps explain why she acts as she does. When we observe patterns in how others act, we take this to be evidence of a trait or disposition. We attribute loyalty to hose we can rely on, generosity to those who donate significant time and resources, and arrogance to those who focus excessively on their own achievements. These trait attributions help us predict how people will act in the future. Many of us consider ourselves good judges of character.<\/p>\n
Character judgments are ubiquitous in ordinary life because they are so useful. They help guide decisions about who to hire or cultivate friendships with. We often predict who will appreciate a pun and who will groan, or who will keep a secret and who won\u2019t.<\/p>\n
In light of this, proscriptions against character evidence in courts may appear unwarranted. In the U.S., the Federal Rules of Evidence govern permissible and impermissible uses of evidence for legal procedure. These rules define character evidence as evidence about someone\u2019s propensity to act in a certain way.<\/p>\n
Some U.S. evidentiary rules prohibit or limit how evidence about a defendant\u2019s character can be used during trial. FRE 404(a) generally prohibits use of character evidence to prove someone\u2019s conduct on a particular occasion. Many object: If we use character evidence to explain and predict behaviors in ordinary life, why is it prohibited in legal factfinding? And the prohibition allows many exceptions. FRE 607, 608, and 609 permit using character evidence to cast doubt on the credibility of witnesses and FRE 413 permits \u201csimilar crime\u201d character evidence against defendants charged with sexual assault. If legal uses of character evidence are reasonable in these cases, why is it generally proscribed?<\/p>\n
Epistemological concerns about character evidence exclusions are especially acute for virtue ethicists. Virtue theory emphasizes the centrality of character for explaining and governing conduct. There is apparent tension between holding that character is paramount for understanding behavior and endorsing prohibitions on character evidence for legal factfinding.<\/p>\n
Epistemic justifications of legal character evidence exclusions typically appeal to situationism (Mendez 1996, 1998). Situationism holds that contingent features of situations, rather than stable character traits, largely determine a person\u2019s conduct (Gilbert 1999; Alfano 2013). Darley and Batson\u2019s famous Good Samaritan experiments purported to show, for example, that one\u2019s likelihood of helping a stranger in need is determined largely by situational factors, such as whether one is running late (Darley and Batson 1973). Matthews and Cannon (1975) suggest that helping behaviors are better predicted by background noise volume than by character ascriptions such as beneficence. According to situationists, using character evidence in court is misguided for the same reason it is misguided in ordinary life: it underestimates the role of situation-specific conditions in determining behavior. But this justification for character evidence exclusions is antithetical to virtue theory, which foregrounds the role of character in guiding conduct.<\/p>\n
In light of this, what should a virtue theorist make of character evidence prohibitions? Should virtue theory, by centering the explanatory power of character, oppose them?<\/p>\n
We think not. In response to the situationist critique of virtue ethics, Julia Annas points out that the situationist experiments only measured the test subjects\u2019 conduct, but not their reasoning. \u00a0Character traits are not merely dispositions to behave in specific ways, but to find certain reasons for acting salient or appealing (Annas 2003). What the situationist interprets as behaviors that conflict with character traits might instead be acting in accordance with reasons-responsive traits.<\/p>\n
This virtue ethical response to situationism shows how virtue theory can epistemically justify legal character evidence prohibitions. We have limited epistemic access to the reasons for which others act, suggesting that explanatory and predictive character judgments may be more epistemically burdensome than ordinary practice leads us to believe. First, the same behaviors can be explained by reference to different practical reasons. One could be disposed to tell the truth out of respect for others or from a self-interested desire to be trusted and well-regarded. Behavior can conceal a person\u2019s reasons for acting. A pattern of truth-telling alone does not reveal a person\u2019s reasons.<\/p>\n
Further, the reasons underlying behavioral dispositions are probably not as general as we tend to think. Dispositions to tell the truth and to avoid stealing could both be called \u201chonest,\u201d but the reasons to act honestly vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> telling the truth could easily come apart from reasons to act honestly vis-\u00e0-vis <\/em>not stealing (Kamtekar 2004). Honesty with respect to assertions differs from honesty with respect to property because different reasons can motivate these actions. Reasons to tell the truth to friends, furthermore, differ from reasons to tell the truth to a jury. Gathering character evidence and using it reliably hinges on determining which reasons are salient to a person, and how they interpret, assess, and weigh those reasons.<\/p>\n Forming justified character judgments, then, is more epistemically arduous than we ordinarily think. It is easy to misunderstand how an agent\u2019s character underwrites her conduct, even if her character can ultimately explain a great deal of what she does. And if this provides some reason to pause when using character evidence in ordinary life, it provides even more reason for hesitancy in legal contexts. Courts must prove specific matters: Somebody keyed the car and the factfinder must decide whether Bill did it. Dan drove home, the court must decide whether he was drunk. Character judgments in ordinary life, by contrast, are typically more general. We infer that, since he is reckless, Dan sometimes drives drunk, or we would not be surprised if Bill has keyed a car. We typically use them to explain<\/em>, rather than predict, particular actions. Character judgments may be more difficult to justify than we commonly think, and all the more epistemically onerous the more specific they are.<\/p>\n Unfavorable character evidence influences jurors more than favorable character evidence (Lupfer et al. 1986). And so the errors caused by character evidence are likely to disproportionately disadvantage the defendant. That is, these errors tend towards false convictions rather than false acquittals. Perhaps in ordinary life this cynical pull of character evidence is less problematic, but legal systems aim to protect the defendant. Evidence law aims to avoid false convictions, on balance, even if more false acquittals result. Since character evidence is less reliable than is commonly appreciated, and its epistemic value is overestimated, there are epistemic grounds for excluding character evidence from legal proceedings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n Alfano, Mark. 2013. Character as Moral Fiction<\/em>. New York: Cambridge University Press.<\/p>\n Annas, J. 2003. Virtue Ethics and Social Psychology. A Priori 2, <\/em>20-59.<\/p>\n Darley, J. & Batson, C. D. 1973. From Jerusalem to Jericho: A Study of Situational Disposition Variables in Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27<\/em>(1),<\/em> 100-108.<\/p>\n Harman, Gilbert. 1999. Moral Philosophy meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error. Proceedings from the Aristotelian Society, 99,<\/em> 315-331<\/p>\n Kamtekar, R. 2004. Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of our Character. Ethics, 114<\/em>(3),<\/em> 458-491.<\/p>\n Lupfer, Michael, Robert Cohen, J.L. Bernard and Dale Smalley (1986) Presenting Favorable and Unfavorable Character Evidence to Juries. Law & Psychology Review<\/em> 10.<\/p>\n Matthews, K. E. & L. K. Cannon. 1975. Environmental Noise Level as a Determinant of Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>. 32(4),<\/em> 571\u2013577<\/p>\n M\u00e9ndez, M. A. 1996. The Law of Evidence and the Search for a Stable Personality. Emory Law Journal, 45,<\/em> 221-238.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014. 1998. Character Evidence Reconsidered: \u201cPeople do not seem to be predictable characters\u201d. Hastings Law <\/em>Review 46(3), 871-894.<\/p>\n Smith, Jacob, and Georgi Gardiner. Forthcoming. Opacity of Character: Virtue Ethics and the Legal Admissibility of Character Evidence. Philosophical Issues<\/em>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This entry sketches ideas from our co-authored essay \u2018Opacity of Character: Virtue Ethics and the Legal Admissibility of Character Evidence<\/a>\u2019 (forthcoming) special issue on law and philosophy in Philosophical Issues. <\/em>See also a\u00a0 cheat sheet<\/a> for the same. All available on https:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/georgigardiner\/research<\/a><\/p>\n Photo: Seeking the Truth Behind the mask Photo by fotografierende<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"We tend to think another person\u2019s character helps explain why she acts as she does. When we observe patterns in how others act, we take this to be evidence of […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1247,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Gardiner and Smith \"Legal Character Evidence Prohibitions and the Opacity of Character\" On Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[61,299,288,124,297,298],"custom_author":[295],"class_list":["post-1208","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-character","tag-criminal-law","tag-evidence","tag-justice","tag-situationism","tag-virtue-ethics","custom_author-gardiner-georgi"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-ju","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":338,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-closed-mindedness-obstructs-effective-inquiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":0},"title":"How Closed-Mindedness Obstructs Effective Inquiry","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"In his recent book Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon describes his encounters with the two main protagonists of the 2003 Iraq war. Nixon, a senior leadership analyst for the CIA, was the first American to interrogate Saddam Hussein at length after his capture by U.S.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/12\/barbed-wire-946199_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":456,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/ruminating-on-fake-news-online-education-and-intellectual-humility\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":1},"title":"Ruminating on Fake News, Online Education, and Intellectual Humility","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 18, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"From 2015 until last month (May, 2018), I was involved with a project at the University of Edinburgh, which aimed to produce a massive open online course (or MOOC) on intellectual humility. One of the central goals of the project was to give various academics who are producing extremely valuable\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/06\/park_white_black_water_rain_tom_oregon_canon-296566.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":357,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/can-exposure-to-fake-news-damage-our-intellectual-character\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":2},"title":"Can Exposure to \u201cFake News\u201d Damage Our Intellectual Character?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"There is no denying the current widespread interest in the phenomenon of \u201cfake news\u201d. Reflection on the quality of recent political debates has fuelled concerns about the use of inaccurate and misleading stories and statistics. In response, politicians have begun proposing legislation to combat the spread of misleading information, while\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1348,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-value-of-thinking-for-yourself\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":3},"title":"The Value of Thinking for Yourself","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 10, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Why think for yourself? Sometimes thinking for yourself is necessary. Sometimes you are the expert, sometimes the experts (or their beliefs) are too hard to identify, and sometimes there\u2019s not enough time to consult the relevant experts. However, at other times you can identify the experts as well as what\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/01\/decaying-vessels-1205564.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":408,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/intellectual-humility-and-conviction\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":4},"title":"Intellectual Humility and Conviction","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Here is a puzzle. On the one hand, we laud people in public life for their conviction, for sticking to their principles come what may. Indeed, we take to be crucial to someone\u2019s authenticity. On the other hand, however, don\u2019t we also think that it is important that those in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/02\/Civil_Rights_March_on_Washington_D.C._Dr._Martin_Luther_King_Jr._and_Mathew_Ahmann_in_a_crowd._-_NARA_-_542015_-_Restoration.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":163,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/hubris-as-prime-ministerial-vice\/","url_meta":{"origin":1208,"position":5},"title":"Hubris as Prime Ministerial Vice","author":"Ian Kidd","date":"July 31, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"When Theresa May\u2019s snap election backfired decimating her majority, many commentators were quick to use a language of vices to describe her errors. \u2018May\u2019s astounding arrogance has now paved the way for another General Election\u2019, complained the Independent, echoing attacks by the Guardian and Mirror of the various forms of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/Paradise_Lost_12-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1208"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1229,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1208\/revisions\/1229"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1247"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1208"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}