The Truth of the Matter
Posted October 19, 2010
Eager to perform my civic duty, I arrived at the Taunton Superior Court in Massachusetts on a Monday morning in March of 2010. Despite my willingness to serve as a juror, I hoped my time commitment would be limited to just a few hours. I would then be on my way with a renewed “get-out-of-jury-duty card” in hand for the next couple years. I was always excused before. My number was usually too high or the case settled once the jury pool was in the room. Proudly, I could say I fulfilled my service, but with little effort. By the end of the fifth day, I left the courtroom physically and emotionally exhausted.
The defendant was a 40-year-old man accused of assault with the intent to rape a child under the age of 16 and indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14. The alleged victim was his daughter. It was clear from the first words of testimony there would be no winners in this case. The personal devastation and the negative impact on society already had been firmly established. The question was one of justice.
While there were significant pre-trial restrictions on the evidence provided, the circumstances became clear. Albert was already in prison for drug trafficking. Every indication was the home of this family was a crack house and a nearby convenience store served as a front for distribution. There was no way to paint a positive picture of this situation. As the information accumulated, the depths of misconduct and neglect were overwhelming. If the trial was about creating a horrible environment for children, conviction would have been easy. Yet the evidence for these charges was the lone claim of a young girl, who had remained silent for several years. It was her word against his.
Once the testimony was complete and we were charged on the technicalities of the law, we assembled in the jury room. To my utter surprise we were almost evenly split on both charges. Some were unable to accept the story of a young girl, others had sympathy for the defendant, a few of us were persuaded this girl had been profoundly abused. Everyone was confused. The days were spent in argument, writing on flip charts, recreating events, educating ourselves about legal procedure and discussing the limits of the evidence presented. We had to start over as one juror was excused for an emergency. Another thought a simple majority should rule and was stunned when we explained the requirement of unanimity. At one point a well-respected member suggested a deal; we could find him guilty of indecent assault, but acquit him of the attempted rape charge. It was seriously considered. The entire process was incredibly painful. We returned to the judge twice to share our frustration at being deadlocked, only to be sent back to try harder with some standard advice. At that point I wished I had the authority to decide the case myself.
James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, describes many settings in which groups of people have made decisions far superior to what an individual would have achieved. He writes,
One of the striking things about the wisdom of crowds is that even though its effects are all around us, it’s easy to miss, and, even when it’s seen, it can be hard to accept. Most of us believe that valuable knowledge is concentrated in a very few hands (or, rather, in a very few heads). We assume that the key to solving problems or making good decisions is finding that one right person who will have the answer. (pp. XIV-XV)
Does collective wisdom outweigh individual expertise? I’ve had to think a lot about this. I had a colleague years ago who insisted if we gave him every decision to make on his own, the institution we served would be much better off. I liked his chutzpah, but not all of his opinions. I’ve also had the experience of playing the “stranded on the moon game” (another version is set in the desert) where individual expertise is compared to the wisdom of the group in finding ways to survive. The group seems to always do better than the individuals.
Our jury was well into the fifth day when the judge’s instructions took on a greater clarity. It was “our duty to decide the case” and “we are the finders of fact.” That blew me away. Were we actually being placed in a situation where we had to determine the “truth” based entirely on our collective wisdom? We returned to the jury room and studied the exact language of the statutes in question and realized we had not looked deeply enough to connect the evidence with the requirements of the law. We voted and had one hold-out juror. She was not very popular. The pressure on her was intense. By this time I would have been pleased to have anyone else on Earth decide the case and a mistrial grew more appealing as the hours passed. We reviewed the entire case again from beginning to end. Eventually our hold-out juror relented. The defendant was convicted on both charges and later sentenced to 10 years plus 15 years of supervised release.
The trial was complete. Yet the judge made it her practice to meet with jurors after each trial to answer questions and offer her thanks. Those with doubts were the most anxious to hear her thoughts. It was then we learned that his entire criminal record was not presented to us. It would have been far too prejudicial. He also had more serious charges pending for which he will be tried in the coming days.
I based my decision to convict on the testimony of a young girl who bravely took the stand and presented a plausible scenario consistent with the surrounding circumstances. There were no direct witnesses, nor was there any physical evidence. In the end, the truth of the matter was determined entirely by collective wisdom. Was justice served?
About the Author
I'm the lucky individual who carries the title, 21st president of Central College in Pella, Iowa. Passionate about higher education and the issues facing it and the world today, I hope to invoke an engaging conversation with all who are ready to dig in, make a difference and build for the future. Share your thoughts. I'm listening and interested.
Comment
19 responses to The Truth of the Matter
“Was justice served?”
Oh no! Another rambling, self-centered posting.
I think Mark Truth is more interested in running from the truth than facing it. If he were interested in “Truth” he’d use his real name and not hide behind a pseudonym.
Sometimes what a person says about another is actually more a reflection of him/herself than what is true about the other. Be careful about the “beams” in ones own eye.
As a lawyer in the Air Force JAG Corps (and a 2006 Central grad), I find this blog entry fascinating. My chances of being empaneled as a member of jury are next to nothing now, but the minds of jurors oftentimes puzzle us lawyers. We try to focus on the law and then show how the facts meet those elements (prosecution anyway), yet it is less common than one would think that jurors follow the path you present and come back with a conviction. Everybody is influenced by events in their own lives and their own sense of justice, on top of the fact that us lawyers don’t do as good a job of laying out that path to follow as we would like. Thank you for the post, Sir.
Having been a defense attorney for several years and a prosecutor for several more, I have been amazed at how well a jury can shake out the truth from volumes of sometimes conflicting evidence and jury instructions that sometimes stump the lawyers. There were very few times when I disagreed with a jury verdict.
Twelve people, all having much different experiences, educations, living situations, and intellect, somehow come together and find the truth. It is an amazing process in which the college president and the ditch digger are on equal ground, work with each other and come to an understanding.
Matt’s view is interesting to me — I wonder if the Air Force juries are different than the civilian juries? It is a more homogenous group. Or perhaps his surprise comes whenever a not guilty verdict is found or when the jury comes to a compromise verdict, while my surprise would come only when the verdict made no sense at all.
At any rate, if a group is functioning properly, the combined wisdom of the group is far better than the average wisdom of its individuals, in my opinion. It is the reason we have jury trials, and why most defendants opt for a jury, rather than a single judge deciding the “truth.”
Thanks for the blog. I am really enjoying it!
Thank you again, Dr. Putman for your blog posts. They are indeed interesting and thought provoking. I started thinking about the jury process and how “group think” operates. It seems that the jury process offers more focus on facts and laws and encourages everyone to speak their opinion. A process dominated by “Group think” by contrast perhaps encourages more emotion-based and authority-based decision making where alternative opinions and facts are not encouraged.
I am a 1977 graduate and spent 3 years doing chaplaincy at the North Carolina Correctional Center for Women after I graduated from Central. During this time I encountered many women who were convicted of a crime because of lack of fair legal representation, because they were black women, or because they were poor women. Justice? It seeks to uphold the law, but laws are created and interpreted by humans. Jurors are civilians who are called to serve in a complicated and contradictory legal system. It wasn’t until I sat on a jury 7 years ago that I was surprised and humbled by the power of the jury to determine the truth of another person’s actions. The courtroom is just one layer of justice, but one that I grateful we have. The day to day work of justice is our biggest challenge.
Juries are special highly controlled groups brought together to make a decision on a specific issue. As long as they are as impartial as we can make them and only presented with evidence that the parties involved are given a fair opportunity to examine and refute, I can’t think of how to make the system any better. Groups in general are a whole other matter and I don’t trust them to do what is best for themselves or anyone else.
I will disagree with one part of your blog. “It was clear…there would be no winners in this case…The question was one of justice.” I believe ours is an “adversarial” system of justice. The people doing the prosecuting and defending may say that their goal is justice but, I believe most times their personal interests are better served by winning than by achieving justice. Again, I don’t have a suggestion to make it better.
“Groups in general are a whole other matter and I don’t trust them to do what is best for themselves or anyone else.”
I agree, uncontrolled group thinking tends to lead toward mob control e.g. current rioting in France. On the other hand controlled group thinking, such as free and fair elections, can yield highly superior decisions compared to an individual with a limited information set and bias.
Groupthink means enforced consensus. It’s imposed, and ultimately authoritarian. Many small groups are in practice simply covers for the will of a dominant individual or clique.
The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ communicated via free elections or the invisible hand of the market comprises the aggregate of a great number of much more purely individual decisions. It’s harder to corrupt.
So these are very different ideas indeed.
The decisions juries must make fall between these poles, which is on reason they’re often very hard. Since unanimity via consensus is required in some jury systems, any holdout is likely to be placed under enormous pressure to conform.
In Dr Putnam’s piece, I’m interested in how that holdout juror was convinced to change her mind. All we are told is that ‘she was not very popular’; ‘the pressure on her was intense’ and she ‘eventually . . . relented’. Note the use of passive constructions. Who put the pressure on her? Who made her unpopular? The other 11 jurors, presumably.
So this is a moving story, but given the context and purpose of this blog, what does it mean for Central? What does it say about how unconventional or even iconoclastic thought and thinkers should be treated in a liberal arts college setting?
Ross, I am responding to your statement about how free elections and the invisible hand of the market are less corruptible. Are they indeed? I believe that money and power (with strong currents of greed and fear) influence people’s decisions in those arenas greatly–witness the effect of attack ads, which are largely lies and distortions, and the meltdown in the market a few years ago. I think that juries have a better chance as there is more equal footing among participants and everyone is encouraged to express their opinion and reasoning. Granted, to come to a consensus, sometimes people are pressured, but they do have the option to have a hung jury.
Was Justice served? Sure, as we have defined it.If the decision had been not guilty Justice would also have been served. We live in a fallen world and only God is fully Just and fully knowledgeable. We do the best we can with the system that has been set up. The next time any of us enters a court room it may be as a victim or one charged with an offense. Let us pray that all juries humbly accept the responsibility to uncover the truth and act wisely.
With regard to whether justice is served in any given case, it is inherently true that we have only done the best we can. I doubt that it is helpful in the long run to insist that “We live in a fallen world where only God is fully Just-” We may individually accept this as theological truth, but it seems important to recognize the separation of cival law and religious domains in deciding whether justice is served.
I believe there is a significant difference between the negative results that typically stem from “group think” and the dynamics created from the aspects of a jury which have been previously mentioned.
I have an admittedly dim view of some of what passes for justice in our society, but like Mr. Coddington know of no better system. I was impressed by Dr. Putnam’s experience and was also pleasantly surprised by the dynamics of a jury I recently served on. Despite very diverse backgrounds and strong and varying opinions all around, there was an inherent respect for one another. There also existed a freedom for all to express themselves without reservation and no one sought to dominate the deliberations. Ultimately, I was convinced we had done our best and that we had each sought to reach a just verdict. As Mr. Greene references, there was wisdom in our conclusion. Though far from perfect, in my experience the dynamics of a jury system largely works.
Thanks to Dr. Putnam and each of you (with the possible exception of “Mark Truth”) for your insightful thoughts. Was great to feel once again the excitement of stimulating thought and debate that often seems to be lacking in my years since leaving CUI.
In theory our government is based on a system of checks and balances. The executive is a check to the courts because governors have the power to pardon. This power is often not used because governors are afraid that they will be marked as soft on crime. The courts are going to make some mistakes. The executive branch needs to have some process to intelligently review cases and if an injustice is done the governor should use his/her power to pardon to fix unjust situations. The legislature is also a check on the courts because they make the laws. It should be assumed that some errors will happen and the three branches of government need to work towards the common goal of better justice. Citizens need to understand that this check and balance system is important and not vote out governors that use the power to pardon.
What about Judges when they use the wisdom of the law as stated in the Constitution to rule out popular legislation in order to protect a minority group which out of popular favor? Are they then suddenly “Activists”, legislating from the bench? Or are they in fact unpopular professionals, doing their difficult job as it is described in the Legislation and Constitution they are sworn to uphold?
We need a link to edit our comments after posting. The above should read “…minority group which IS out of popular favor…”
I appreciate the way this case study has opened up dialog amongst the Central Community. One special aspect was the final comment about how the judge interacted with each of the jury members after the case was completed. I find that an encouraging display of caring on her part for the experience of each juror who invested so much in the process. Perhaps each of them did “win” something in their search for justice.
Another interesting blog, and one which does raise the question of individual versus collective judgment. For the clear conscience of each member of the jury the collective decision is imperative. But, the single hold-out juror was ultmately forced to make an important individual judgment -that of changing her mind. It seems that one must ultimately make one’s own decision in any case, even when the collective judgment is considered. Collective decisions are certainly not public opinion, but presumably based on facts in any instance. The question is, which facts are the accurate ones.