Categories: uncategorized
Date: 19 February 2007 16:41:18
I was pondering prejudices.
Big Brother and the Verdict have provoked a lot of comment lately, and there's even been some good stuff among all the dross. One was a very intelligent critic in, I think, the Observer commenting that Jade and her family weren't racist because they didn't think they were, they were just ignorant. (My paraphrase!) So if the reason my dad thinks all blacks are lazy is because he doesn't know any better, then that's okay is it? I rather think not. In fact, I'd have thought most prejudices of this sort and purely down to ignorance. Is there anyone who decides that although they know most blacks are not lazy, they'll decide to think that they are from now on? Perhaps some BNP members who want to advance their career would be deliberately prejudiced in that way, but surely not many others.
Another comment on prejudices from a critic about the Verdict complained that the jury were throwing out prejudiced clich´s as if that was where they would find the truth of the case. At first glance that sounds like a reasonable complaint - yes, how stupid the jury are to think that their prejudices will lead them to the truth. But yet, that is exactly how we work, isn't it? Our prejudices are the broad-brush strokes of our understanding of how the world works. My red-headed friend is quite calm and level-headed, so I know the cliché about red-heads and their tempers is not absolutely true - there are exceptions. Yet, my prejudice is to expect, until proven otherwise, a red-head to have a hot temper. My prejudice is borne of experience (direct or second-hand via books, TV programmes, newspapers or comments from friends) so that is the background to the secondary observation that "this isn't universally true". So if a red-head is charged with a hot-blooded killing, then my first instinct is to think that it's quite likely. I'll be open to evidence to the contrary, but in the absence of such evidence then my prejudice is what shapes my expectations. (Well, that's what prejudice means, literally, isn't it!)
Yes, of course, that may not be the actual truth. But how can I know? By being placed on a jury I'm being asked to use my experience of the world to judge the evidence presented in the case. That experience of the world is, firstly, summed up by my prejudices. That is the first approximation. It's not the final word because my experience will also have taught me that there can be exceptions. But the only way I have of trying to discern the truth is to use what I have learnt about the world, and that means my prejudices first of all.
And then there's all the debate about rape trials and prosecution rates. Wiser people than me would avoid commenting on such a dangerous topic, but my mouth is big and my skin likes to pretend it's thick so here goes. Obvious fact one: you can't judge the success of rape trials by looking at statistics. There is no statistical fact that says 70% (or whatever figure you want to pluck out of the air) of people charged with a crime are guilty. Therefore, you cannot logically argue that if the prosecution rate in rape trials is low then that means guilty people are being let off. The conclusion might be correct; the logic is not. Second obvious fact: a false conviction is a pretty unpleasant thing. The point that's often made is how unpleasant it is to be raped and to see the rapist escape without conviction. Sure, that must be horrendous, but dare I question whether it's actually worse than being wrongly convicted? Of course we don't usually have to choose between those two options, but if they are the only two options, then which really is worse? The whole of our legal system has, hitherto, been based on the principle that convicting an innocent person is worse than letting someone guilty go free. That is not a popular principle these days but it is one I wholeheartedly believe in. Third obvious fact: a jury is going to find it hard to decide beyond all reasonable doubt what happened if they are to base this on two conflicting accounts of an event which no-one else witnessed. Combine those last two facts and you inevitably have a low conviction rate. A jury really is faced with that horrible choice that we considered earlier - release a rapist or put an innocent man behind bars and give him a horrible reputation to live down even after he is released. Our justice system really isn't well adapted for this situation; I'm sure the conviction rates are lower than they should be even though I can't know that for definite. But it is beyond my wit to think up a justice system that would increase these rates and still be a justice system rather than an injustice system. But I pray that someone can think of such a system, and soon. And in the meantime, I'm going to duck.