TWELVE BETTING MEN

There are some movies that I am glad I have seen, but if they pop up on TV, for example, on Turner Classic Movies, my initial reaction is to change the channel, because they are depressing or they just don’t meet my mood at that moment.  The thing is, though, that since I’m rather lazy, I don’t grab the remote quickly enough and, within a few lines, I’m hooked and I watch the rest of the movie.  One such film is 12 Angry Men[1] and the other night I viewed most of the film one more time.  I really like this film; I believe it should be “a must watch” for any person summoned to serve on a felony case jury.  For those who have not seen this film, the story concerns a murder case in which everyone on the jury has decided to find the defendant guilty, except for one juror.  This one “not guilty” juror begins questioning the evidence to the discomfort and even anger of the other jurors.  Slowly but surely he, and eventually other jurors, change minds so that by the end, the verdict is not guilty.  The conversations in the jury room generate reasonable doubt, for after all, to find the accused guilty, all the jurors have to be convinced as to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  But what does “beyond a reasonable doubt mean?”

This is not such an easy concept for civics’ students to understand.  First, a student needs to understand that an accused does not, by this standard, have to prove his/her innocence.  Yet, despite this legal refrain, in real courtrooms often the accused who doesn’t prove he/she is innocent is convicted.  On today’s Terry Gross’ National Public Radio show, Fresh Air, her guest was a lawyer who defends people on death row.  Bryan Stevenson told of one case in which the individual was defended by very competent lawyers who presented a very viable argument as to the defendant’s innocence – or at least a case that more than adequately engendered reasonable doubt.  Yet, in Mr. Stevenson’s words, the jury was too disposed toward finding the defendant guilty.  Eventually, after the conviction, evidence was assembled that proved the man innocent.  After years behind bars awaiting execution, he was released.  Unfortunately, this is not a singular case; we, from time to time, hear of such cases and see that those falsely accused are released from prison after years of their lives having been sacrificed.  He also told us of how the experiences had lasting detrimental effects on these people’s lives.

I will not get into the usual array of definitions for “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  You can readily find these on the web.  What I want, instead, is to offer a mental exercise students can do.  A teacher could show students the film, 12 Angry Men, with a predetermined plan to stop the film in spots that are conducive to this exercise.  The students hear the evidence as presented in the plot.  The teacher stops and asks, by a show of hands, which students think the defendant is guilty, and how many think he is not guilty.  Early on, the teacher makes the point that no one “knows” whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty; you can only believe one way or the other.  So the question is:  how do you believe in this case?  But then I would add another dimension.  At each stop, I would have the students imagine that before them is an all-knowing being who actually knows the truth.  They can further imagine that whatever their vote is – guilty or not guilty – they are to consider how much they are willing to bet that they are right.  Since before them is someone who knows, we can be told whether a students’ beliefs are correct.  Are they willing to bet $10, $100, $10,000?  Of course, the meaningfulness of the bet is dependent on one’s wealth.  So let the teacher say, in our exercise, the student is to adopt the role of a median wealth type person.  For that person, $10,000 is meaningful.  Teacher asks:  Are you so sure of your belief that you are willing to bet $10,000?  If you are right, you at least keep your $10,000; if you are wrong, you lose your $10,000.  How sure are you?  As the film progresses and, I’m sure, votes will change as happens to the characters, the teacher can remind the students how they voted earlier and perhaps how poorer they might have been if they had voted guilty during the first few stops.

When one thinks of how jurors can find defendants guilty or not guilty, it is useful to consider that jurors, other than the investment in time the case is taking, have nothing to lose in their deliberations.  We assume that they will take on this responsibility as a civic obligation and do a good job.  One of the characters in the movie is upset because he is missing a ball game by spending all this extra time to reconsider the evidence.  He is even willing to change his vote just to get the whole thing over.  I am led to believe that by and large jurors accept their duty responsibly.  I certainly hope so.

---

[1] This is a 1957 film starring Henry Fonda with a stellar cast.  The original version was a dramatic production written and produced for television.  The original script was written by Reginald Rose.  The film was directed by Sidney Lumet.

A HUNCH IS IT’S GOING TO BE SOMETHING

A few postings ago, I reported that our conscious mind can handle about forty bits of information while our subconscious can handle, according to one estimate, eleven million.  I found that hard to believe, but then I started thinking:  what about our subconscious taking in all the information from our body, for example?  We are not conscious of that until one of those bits of information indicates a problem.  That’s not to say that even our subconscious can detect all our bodily information; we hear of cases in which, without them knowing, a person is carrying a disease for significant amount of time till the condition is really bad.  But I have also heard of cases where, while the illness is not detected per se, a person has a “feeling” that something is wrong.  Of course, hypochondriacs have this feeling a lot, but they are mistaken. 

I bring up the subconscious because I believe a great deal of what polls are picking up now as to who is leading in the respective contests within the two major parties’ races for the White House is just initial takes on the candidates – not a lot of reflection has taken place.  Pollsters are hearing gut reactions to what voters have heard and how they see and feel about how the state of things generally is.  They are supposed to be angry, the media tells them they should be, and so, whoever comes across most genuinely angry, that’s the guy or gal the voter will tell a pollster he/she is likely to support come election day.  Donald Trump’s appeal, I think, has a lot to do with his language and tone, not his substance.  This is not new.  Review early favorites in the past and see that many did not make it even past the first few months of the campaign season, and did not last past a primary election or two.  By the way, the first two real selection process dates are January 1, 2016, for the beginning of the Iowa caucus process, and February 9 for the New Hampshire primary – four and five months away, respectively.  While that’s around the corner in those states, for most of the rest of us, we have many months to go.  Summer is in full bloom, although some areas’ schools have already begun.  The point is, a lot is tugging on the conscious minds of many Americans and interest and thinking as to whom to vote for are still in the future.

Within this context, I found a study Malcolm Gladwell reports in his book, Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, interesting.  Let me tell you about it my own way:  Suppose I put you in a room with four decks of cards in front of you – the cards are face down.  There are two red decks and two blue decks.  You are to pick up a card at a time, from whatever deck you wish, and see what it is and, depending on what you pick up, you either win money or you lose money (I assume the money you lose was from an initial amount you were given or from money you had already won).  The amounts can be significant or not.  The trick to a winning strategy is to pick from the blue decks which results, in any given pick, to a modest amount of winnings if you win or a minimal amount of loss if you lose.  “Red” cards do pay off bigger amounts, but they also penalize you heavily.  The question in the experiment was:  how fast can you detect the formula to maximize your winnings?  Most figured it out by the eightieth card, although the subjects reported having a hunch by the fiftieth card; interesting finding, but that was not the most telling part.  The subjects were also hooked up to sensors in the palms of their hands to pick up any increase in sweating, a sign of anxiety.  Those sensors usually picked up problems with the “red” choice after only ten picks, a subconscious reaction.  Wow.

I would have been interested to find out if the subjects could see the cards on a computer monitor where the experimenters could change the likelihood of winning and losing picks at any time during the experiment.  Experimenters could then see if subconscious reactions would have been affected according to changes in the programmed schedule of winning and losing; maybe the experimenters did this, but Gladwell doesn’t report it.

In any event, in terms of the early phases of this election season and taking into account how much information the subconscious detects, it is interesting to ask:  what all is happening in people’s minds as they hear and see what the candidates initially have to say?   One of my concerns is that hunches are often correct.  Our subconscious’ ability to take in the information and determine some phenomena correctly is uncanny.  But usually that’s on the part of people who deal with the particular type of phenomena over large amounts of time.  Even they, though, cannot tell you why their hunches are what they are.  Gladwell tells of a tennis coach who could predict by the way a player tossed a ball up for a serve whether the serve was going to be a good one or not, even when the coach could not tell you what was wrong with the toss.  The coach’s predictions were highly accurate.  Most voters vote infrequently and they pay little or no attention to the political process other than during that time immediately prior to voting day.  In low turnout elections – and primaries tend to be that kind of election – two types of people show up:  ideologues and angry people.  Perhaps with a high profile figure like Trump, the numbers will be higher come primary day, attracting less informed people.  If so, how will that affect the process, especially on the Republican side?  It promises to be an interesting election season – hold on!