The Verdict; burden of proof and logical fallacies

[median]

BBC2 series, the Verdict, screened over 4 nights finished on Thursday evening.
For those not familiar with the set up featured a fictitious rape case of a young woman by two men (one a famous footballer). The ‘case’ was presented in a supposedly authentic court setting with real court officials (judge, prosecution and defence counsel). The ‘jury’ charged with coming to a verdict was made up of a variety of public figures/celebrities such as Michael Portillo, Lord Archer, Stan Collymore and Honor Blackman.

The series was interesting on several reasons, not least of all watching the group dynamics.
Firstly there was a case when the plaintiff was found to be lying. Several jurors found this enough to doubt the whole accusation but actually this is a composition error. It does not follow that a lie in one area leads to a lie in all areas.
Secondly, the whole idea of finding a person or persons guilty was by using physical evidence that could have been interpreted as evidence for either consensual or non-consensual sex. The emphasis was placed on examining the evidence but part of the evidence was the statements of the defendants and plaintiff themselves, a fact that was not acknowledged by some jurors.

Thirdly, one key piece of evidence, an injury of an intimate nature sustained at the time of the incident. Expert witnesses were used by both sides and it appeared that the type of injury could have had both a natural and unnatural cause.
However, to my mind, application of baseline probabilities could have been used in these types of cases and could have aided the decision making process (the judge had previously acknowledged that in many rape cases it comes down to one persons account against another).

Interestingly, whilst I recognise that the burden of proof falls very much in the domain of the accuser, I cannot help thinking that the odds can be in many cases stacked against supposed victims.

For reference for those who haven’t seen it http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/eta/#verdict

[Araneus]

The ‘jury’ charged with coming to a verdict was made up of a variety of public figures/celebrities such as Michael Portillo, Lord Archer, Stan Collymore and Honor Blackman.

Off to a good start then. I'm not sure I would rank Stan Collymore as one of the great thinkers of the 21-st century, but never mind. Perhaps the point was to get non-qualified people because that is how real juries are also selected.

Firstly there was a case when the plaintiff was found to be lying. Several jurors found this enough to doubt the whole accusation but actually this is a composition error. It does not follow that a lie in one area leads to a lie in all areas.

In a purely logical sense, yes. However it casts doubt on the honesty of the plaintiff, which from a rational (not purely logical) point of view is cause to treat the rest of the accusation with caution.

Interestingly, whilst I recognise that the burden of proof falls very much in the domain of the accuser, I cannot help thinking that the odds can be in many cases stacked against supposed victims.

That's the problem. Either you have a situation where criminals are not brought to justice, or you have innocent people convicted on nothing more than a malicious accusation. I suspect one's preference is correlated quite strongly with gender.

[Jocky]

Interesting programme - I'm sorry I missed it. It is a difficult business, judging guilt and innocence. Having been in a rape jury, I fear that it cannot often be done purely by the appliction of logic - as if it was, an awful lot of wrongdoers would end up going free.

the whole idea of finding a person or persons guilty was by using physical evidence that could have been interpreted as evidence for either consensual or non-consensual sex ... many rape cases it comes down to one persons account against another

In the case with which I was involved, the key thing was the degree of correlation between the physical evidence and the testimonies of the involved persons. If somebody is claiming consensual sex, but the physical evidence suggests a type of activity which that person specifically denies, then you know that they are not telling the whole truth. The question is then whether that instance of dishonesty is sufficient to cast doubt upon their truthfulness in other repects - and that decision, while rational, is never going to be strictly logical.

[kath23]

Well I have tried and failed to press rape charges against someone in the past and I can assure you that no woman would press charges for no reason, a more humiliating police force and system you could not get, as well as the threats from the friends of the accused etc. The process hurt me as much if not more then the crime itself.

[kath23]

That this is made a subject for TV entertainment is a bit sick to me. Maybe I just am sensitive about it though :)

I also can't help wondering what message or propoganda they were attempting to convey. Because a lot of things on the BBC or on telly as a whole are there in an attempt to change public opinion or behaviour in certain government-endorsed ways. Some are far less subtle. Such as the numerous- oooh, isn't binge-drinking shocking! programmes.

[Araneus]

I can assure you that no woman would press charges for no reason

Nobody does anything for "no reason", but women can and do make false allegations of rape in court. There was the case recently where a young woman made an accusation of rape in order to hide the fact that she had had (consensual) sex outside her relationship. IIRC she got about 18 months for her efforts.

[kath23]

But I think things like that would be a rare exception. In reality, only 1 in 20 of the few rape cases that are ever reported anyway, result in a conviction. (most of these men aren't even prosecuted.)

I still think there may be a meta-reason for this programme. The 'powers that be' may have discovered for instance, that more people think the legal system isn't there for them or doing anything to protect them. So they make a programme about how wonderful the legal system is etc.

Obviously I don't have any proof for this though lol. But you can see it more transparently in other programmes such as 'teens hooked on porn'. This was a programme by some sort of fundies about how all teenage boys should repent and find god instead

[Araneus]

I still think there may be a meta-reason for this programme. The 'powers that be' may have discovered for instance, that more people think the legal system isn't there for them or doing anything to protect them. So they make a programme about how wonderful the legal system is etc.

Maybe it was just an attempt to educate the public regarding how difficult it is to come to a verdict based on two or more contradictory stories, and to illustrate that there is no obvious quick-fix to the problem of low conviction rates in rape cases. I suspect that the best way of avoiding acquaintance rape is to pick your acquaintances more carefully.

[Cuddles]

But I think things like that would be a rare exception.

I think the concern is that it seems this sort of thing is much more common than previously thought. There are numerous cases of people of rape just because they cheated on a parter or were both drunk at a party and regretted it later. The trouble is that there is a stigma attatched to rape accusations, and other crimes such as paedophilia, where you simply have to point at someone and say the magic word and they are immediately assumed to be guilty, even if later proven innocent. Obviously this doesn't diminish the seriousness of real assault cases, but it does explain why the burden of proof has to be the way it is. Yes, some guilty people will go free, but it is either that lock up the innocent and actually reward people for lying to the justice system.

[Araneus]

and other crimes such as paedophilia

[Slightly OT]

Paedophilia is not a crime, it is a mental disorder. Child abuse is a crime (and for the most part not committed by paedophiles).

Society recognising the difference between the two would be the first step towards providing proper support to paedophiles so they could be treated and prevented from actually going on to abuse children.