If Pauly Shore can do it why can't I?
It may be your civic duty, but jury duty sucks and people are always looking for a way out of it.
About six weeks ago I received a summons to go through the jury selection process today. During that time whenever I would mention it to someone they’d suggest a way for me to get out of it. “Tell’em you hate cops. “ “Tell’em your for capital punishment.” “Tell’em you’re against the whole system.”
Maybe I’m being Pollyannaish, but I wasn’t willing to lie to save myself a little inconvenience. As it turns out my honesty and (what I perceive as) my rationality prevented me from serving.
The Answer That Got Me Out of Jury Duty
When faced with the question: Would you believe the testimony of a police officer over that of another witness? I answered: yes.
That answer got me nixed, because it wasn’t the answer the prosecution or defense was looking for. They wanted people who believe that experience and credentials don’t mean anything. But those people are wrong. They do.
Witness Vs. Expert Witness
If you’ve ever watched one of the half-million courtroom dramas, you’ve seen the defense pullout its expert witness. You know the moment, it’s normally followed by gasps from the audience, panicked looks from the prosecution and an immediate cut to a commercial.
But do jury members really know the difference between a forensic pathologist and a forensic psychologist? If you had a forensic pathologist give their opinion about a defendant’s metal state I bet most jurors would except their testimony as valid. Even though they’re giving testimony in fields outside their expertise.
I don’t know (and most jurors don’t know) what it takes to be a good forensic whatever-ist. But with a police officer; I don’t have that problem.
Instant Credibility
When you tell me someone is a police officer, I automatically know several things about them: they can pass a background check; they’re civically minded; they’ve been trained to gather evidence; and they’re likely to be experienced witnesses.
If a hit-and-run occurs on the street most people will be shocked and look around to see what others are doing. A cop will be getting the car’s license plate number.
Cops aren’t infallible. They might not remember the plate number exactly right. But in general, a cop will be a better witness because they’re trained not to be frazzled by the situation.
Why Would a Cop Lie?
It’s obvious why a defendant would lie. Lying might mean keeping themselves out of jail. The risks of an additional perjury conviction is minuscule in comparison to the reward of getting off scot-free.
However, if a police officer lies he / she risks loosing their job, going to jail, and being banned from the profession. Convictions look good on their record, but most people would be ethically opposed to convicting an innocent person.
In court everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A cop saying someone committed a crime doesn’t remove reasonable doubt. I would never make a case for that. But can you honestly not consider someone’s experience and motivation when trying to determine if they are a credible witness?
About: Het-SWM ISO LTR with Pittsburgh's Secular / Skeptical Community 4 Discussion, Debate & TLC. Read more from this author
on Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
See, now I thought you were going to say that you told them you were an atheist and that’s what got you out of jury duty. I’ve had people tell me that.
I’m honestly surprised you put so much stock in police officers. I can honestly say I don’t see them as “experts” per say… I guess I see cops as more neutral. Like “crime curators” really, they gather up the evidence and present it. Their opinion shouldn’t factor into it. Even still – they are in a position of authority and they can be just as biased as the rest of the system. I’m not more or less likely to believe them just because then are in that authority position.
Now, I recently didn’t get selected for jury duty as well. I think they didn’t like that I was recently divorced. Ah well.
on Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Laura,
How is the system biased? Individuals can be biased but nothing in the system is inherently biased.
I think you have to believe everyone, until evidence is presented the brings their credibility into question.
But I think you kind of made my point:
“Like “crime curators” really, they gather up the evidence and present it”
It’s their job to be witnesses. They’re trained to be good at it.
Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. People don’t remember things exactly as they happened. But, the police are trained to pay attention to the important details. That extra focus on what’s important makes them more reliable as witnesses.
on Oct 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I’m afraid that I have to disagree with you about trusting police. One of the reasons people choose to become police is the opportunity to use their badge to push people around. Studies have shown that they often have significant power/control issues. They have a spousal abuse rate more than double that of the general populace – and that’s only the ones whose co-workers don’t help them hide the incident. And their familiarity with the system means that they are able to lie and shade the truth much more effectively.
I have only had my life seriously threatened twice in my lifetime and both times it has been by cops, the worst being when one brandished a gun when I was trying to stop him from beating up his girlfriend. So I’m afraid that I cannot share your unflinching respect for these people.
Back on topic – I would have to say that I absolutely would not accept the word of a cop over any other witness. Yes, they are trained to be more observant and more attentive to detail, but they are also trained how to lie without actually lying.
on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
As the daughter of a police officer (actually, the daughter and step-daughter and niece and cousin of several police officers) I will not likely ever be selected for a jury. I’m related to good cops and (retired) dirty cops, so I personally feel like I’d be a fair juror since I’m well aware that cops are not always heroes and quite often monsters. (And I wonder, if this is, as Bill K suggests something to do with the type of people attracted to the job, or if this is more like a power-corrupts, thing akin to the Stanford Prison Experiment).
When they ask that question though, I don’t think they’re really asking about expert vs. non-expert. (And I think this is a problem with the jury selection process.) I think it is more authority figure vs. peer. In a different sort of society, the question might be posed as, “Would you believe the testimony of a soldier over that of a civilian?” More abstractly — are you a follower or are you a rebel? I’m thinking more like American Revolution rebel, not so much the, um, punk rock teen angst sort.
on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
I guess I meant to say that cops can be just as biased as any other part of the system (public defenders, judges, etc.). Because the parts are just people.
I think you have to believe everyone, until evidence is presented the brings their credibility into question.
This to me sounds like a dangerous position to take. Like Bill K said, cops know the system and know how easily it can be manipulated into their favor. They are human beings. However, I’m not less likely to believe them either. I just think they need to prove themselves on an individual basis.
I agree with BillK’s points about people desiring power. I think that while its nice to think that most people become police officers because they truly want to protect people, I can’t imagine this is always the case. Also, the point that Eliza makes regarding “authority figure vs. peer” is true. Attorneys want to know if you are more likely to believe a police officer over someone else. Not me. I will decide who’s testimony I believe based on what evidence they present and what knowledge and expertise they have. Just by virtue of them being a police officer – that, to me, doesn’t grant them special status to be trusted cart blanche. As a skeptic in a jury room, I have to put aside my preconceived notions about authority.
Its an interesting point you bring up about eye-witness testimony. Studies of memory recall in the brain have actually shown that each time you recall a specific memory you are actually changing that memory just a little bit. So the next time you recall the memory it will be that slightly changed version.
on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Eliza’s point about the opposing attorneys wanting to know if you are a follower or a leader is right on. I have been called for jury duty several times and selected only one time. A friend of mine who is an attorney told me that the reason that I usually don’t get selected is because I appear to be a strong personality – something that they don’t want. (He said that my beard was an indicator of that.) For the record, it was a civil trial so the question of the authority figure never came up.
on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
BillK and Laura,
I think you’re being to a little too cynical.
I’m not arguing that cops should be believed because they’re authorities or expert witnesses. Nor am I allowing past experiences with police to bias by perceptions of them.
If you had two witnesses: one is a cop, the other isn’t. That’s all you know about them. Whose testimony is more creditable? A police officer who has been trained to gather evidence or a person who hasn’t.
Unless you think 50% of cops are lying pricks or that their training has no bearing on their ability to be a witness, you have to give the fact that they are a cop some value. That value isn’t significant enough to destroy any reasonable doubt, so you can’t make a conviction on that alone. But you can’t say it’s irrelevant, and you can’t say it wouldn’t influence a person’s credibility in your mind.
I’d imagine that the ratio of good cops to bad cops is probably 80/20. So I don’t think I’m giving cops “unflinching respect.”
I agree with Bill about not wanting people with strong opinions. When I was undergoing questioning the prosecutor asked me a yes or no question, I preferred to give her a more articulate answer and I think it counted against me.
Also, after talking with a few other jurors I think they refused a few people who had children, because of the nature of the crimes.
on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Perhaps, I am being a bit too cynical – I have been known to do that. But 45 years of predominantly negative experiences are difficult to ignore. Not to mention the observations of law enforcement/prosecutorial misconduct that I am somewhat sensitive to as a result of these experiences.
For the average middle class suburban white guy, life is quite different than it is for some others, and I like to think that I look at the big picture.
But you may be right – I may just be too cynical. Maybe that’s what happens when you change from being an “angry young man” into an “angry old man”.
on Oct 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’ve heard of far too many bad cops to instantly assume that their testimony is going to be more factual than anyone elses. For example, in New York during a Critical Mass bicycle ride, an officer assaulted a cyclist. The officer claimed in his report that the “cyclist drove his bicycle directly into him, knocking him to the ground and causing lacerations on the forearm.” The video taken by a bystander showed that the attack on the cyclist by the officer was completely unprovoked and bore no resemblance to what the officer claimed in his report.
http://dergeis.livejournal.com/285988.html
I’ve had a cop lie about something I had done (speeding in a school zone.) It turned out that this particular GROUP of cops were lying about just about everyone driving through that particular school zone. All of the cases that citizens chose to dispute were ruled in their favor. However, those who chose not to fight in court did not have their cases dismissed. They accepted their alleged guilt and paid the fine.
Everyone has their own agenda and I would not trust one over another just because of their experience or their authority. Experience does count for something. It can count for a lot. But if that person also has a personal stake in the outcome, that can throw all that experience, and the respectability that experience would earn, out the window.
on Oct 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“Jury duty sucks” -> …except when YOU are the one on the bench, in need of a jury!
What I don’t get is why you, or anyone for that matter, would spurn the opportunity to be on a jury in the first place! If ever I needed a juror, I hope it ain’t you.
on Oct 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
@Reader – For many people, jury duty can be a very big issue in terms of finding transportation to the court, child care and losing money at work. The money that one makes in Allegheny County to serve on a jury is kind of a joke. I think it mostly makes up for travel costs if you took a bus, and perhaps pays for a lunch.
I personally don’t like to avoid jury duty myself. I don’t have children and I usually can stand to lose a day of pay. It would be helpful if the courts were more understanding in the cases of single parents or people in financial difficulty. I learned a lot from my experience as a juror.
Now that I reread the comments – who are you quoting?
on Oct 16th, 2008 at 10:50 am
>>Now that I reread the comments – who are you quoting?
The first sentence is:
“It may be your civic duty, but ***jury duty sucks*** and people are always looking for a way out of it.”