I love Dawkins’ pop-sci works on biology and evolution, but like a lot of very smart and articulate people, he can be lazy when he goes outside the realm of his expertise. He uses “courtroom dramas” as evidence of what happens in real-life courtrooms. I wonder if he thinks Hollywood’s portrayal of what scientists do is similarly accurate? Later, he relies on the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, which is famous partly because it was so incredibly weird and wildly outside the mainstream. He says the professionals in the courtroom are “on tenterhooks and hold their breath” when it’s time for the verdict. Are they? My impression is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, experienced trial lawyers are not surprised by juries very often.
In any case, judges and juries see a trial from very, very different perspectives. Judges see defendants in chains and jail uniforms, juries see the defendant in a borrowed business suit. Judges know the when a defendant has tentatively agreed to a plea and then pulled out at the last minute. Moreover, it is the job of a trial judge to make sure that juries do not always see all the evidence. A defendant may have made a full confession and led the cops to the secret spot where the body was hidden, but if the police induced this confession by unconstitutional means, it can’t go before the jury. The list of legal reasons to exclude evidence from a jury is very long. Many, many times, judges preside over criminal trials with the full knowledge that the defendant did in fact do what he (or she) was accused of. However, the trial goes forward, because one major purpose of the trial and the jury system is not just to determine the facts accurately, but to restrain the police and the government from becoming dangerous.
After each side in a criminal case rests, a judge will instruct a jury of laypeople (mostly not mathematicians and philosophers) that the defendant must be found not guilty unless the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Dawkins picks on the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would agree with him that this is a very vague and un-mathematical phrase. But he misses the point that the really important words are “unless the prosecution has proved its case.”
The list of legal reasons to exclude evidence from a jury is very long. Many, many times, judges preside over criminal trials with the full knowledge that the defendant did in fact do what he (or she) was accused of.
A lot of people focus on the fact that a judge can disallow evidence provided by the prosecution… but they seem unaware that judges can, and do, also disallow evidence provided by the defense. It is an unfortunate fact of our trial system in the U.S. that judges have a great deal of power to influence the verdict to produce the outcome they want, by what evidence they allow and disallow.
He mentioned that in the linked article as well. Good for him for performing his civic duty.
I hate to brag but, in high school I not only took chemistry, but biology as well. With my own hands, I dissected not only a worm, and a frog, but even a fetal pig. If memory serves, my final grade was no less than an A- in either semester of a full year course.
With that in mind, I am happy to praise my colleague Richard Dawkins as an accomplished biologist. And yet, I’m afraid this article is not his best work.
I love Dawkins’ pop-sci works on biology and evolution, but like a lot of very smart and articulate people, he can be lazy when he goes outside the realm of his expertise. He uses “courtroom dramas” as evidence of what happens in real-life courtrooms. I wonder if he thinks Hollywood’s portrayal of what scientists do is similarly accurate? Later, he relies on the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, which is famous partly because it was so incredibly weird and wildly outside the mainstream. He says the professionals in the courtroom are “on tenterhooks and hold their breath” when it’s time for the verdict. Are they? My impression is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, experienced trial lawyers are not surprised by juries very often.
In any case, judges and juries see a trial from very, very different perspectives. Judges see defendants in chains and jail uniforms, juries see the defendant in a borrowed business suit. Judges know the when a defendant has tentatively agreed to a plea and then pulled out at the last minute. Moreover, it is the job of a trial judge to make sure that juries do not always see all the evidence. A defendant may have made a full confession and led the cops to the secret spot where the body was hidden, but if the police induced this confession by unconstitutional means, it can’t go before the jury. The list of legal reasons to exclude evidence from a jury is very long. Many, many times, judges preside over criminal trials with the full knowledge that the defendant did in fact do what he (or she) was accused of. However, the trial goes forward, because one major purpose of the trial and the jury system is not just to determine the facts accurately, but to restrain the police and the government from becoming dangerous.
After each side in a criminal case rests, a judge will instruct a jury of laypeople (mostly not mathematicians and philosophers) that the defendant must be found not guilty unless the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Dawkins picks on the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would agree with him that this is a very vague and un-mathematical phrase. But he misses the point that the really important words are “unless the prosecution has proved its case.”
A lot of people focus on the fact that a judge can disallow evidence provided by the prosecution… but they seem unaware that judges can, and do, also disallow evidence provided by the defense. It is an unfortunate fact of our trial system in the U.S. that judges have a great deal of power to influence the verdict to produce the outcome they want, by what evidence they allow and disallow.
In A Devil’s Chaplain, page 40, Dawkins mentions “the three juries that it has been my misfortune to serve on”.
He mentioned that in the linked article as well. Good for him for performing his civic duty.
I hate to brag but, in high school I not only took chemistry, but biology as well. With my own hands, I dissected not only a worm, and a frog, but even a fetal pig. If memory serves, my final grade was no less than an A- in either semester of a full year course.
With that in mind, I am happy to praise my colleague Richard Dawkins as an accomplished biologist. And yet, I’m afraid this article is not his best work.