Danny's dad: Do you hold the fact that Danny opted out of taking pre-calc for a grade against him?Sounds absurd, right? I mean, you're clearly right--the very fact that someone chose a "pass-fail" option over a grade option says that they're most likely not an A-student. This fact signals something, whether anyone likes it or not. And yet, the above conversation (as well as the flawed decision-making resulting from it) is commonplace in American courtrooms. Don't believe me? See this.
You: This fact tells me something.
Danny's dad: It shouldn't tell you anything.
You: But him opting out of a grade signals me something.
College President: You have to ignore the fact that Danny didn't want a grade. It doesn't signal anything.
You: But it does.
President: If you're selected as Danny's teacher, can you ignore the fact that he chose not to take a grade?
You: I could try, but subconsciously I know why he's doing that.
President: Will you try your best not to be prejudiced?
You: I'll try my best, but I can't control my subconscious thought that he's not taking a grade.
Danny's dad: You're excused from teaching Calculus 1.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Most important concepts we don't teach in the courtroom: signaling
Imagine you're a college math teacher. This coming semester, you're supposed to teach Calculus 1. As an only prerequisite for your course, you list a grade of at least A- in a pre-calc course. However, the pre-calc course offered students a choice between taking it for a grade or as "pass-fail." A student named Danny signed up for your class. He passed the pre-calc course, but opted out of taking it for a grade. You don't want to let him in your class, reasoning that no A-student would choose to hide his grade. This, however, makes Danny's dad very angry. Danny's dad wants to speak with you. Even worse, the very President of the college you teach at insists on being present during your this conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
yep good ole 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.. and the prosecuting atty can't mention this fact in closing or the trial may have to be declared a mistrial. the standard in a criminal case, though, is beyond a reasonable doubt, so, at least ostensibly, a jury could not come to a conclusion by this fact alone.. so to say that it signals something is true, but to say that the student will get an F is something different (however much i agree with your general point).
ReplyDeleteAbsence of the defendant on the stand may signal something--i.e. that the defendant is hiding something (like the student is hiding something, potentially, in this case, that he/she is not an A student). If the student gets in to calc, then he or she can outperform his/her past and get an A, or can get a lesser grade, which may or may not include a failing grade. If the professor wants students who will only get A's, then the professor's preference fits with his/her limitation on potential students, notwithstanding the possibility that a typically P/F student holds the potential for an A in the class. But if the Professor is only concerned with capacity to earn a passing mark, then the preference makes less sense. Even so, prejudice by a Professor against a student can be disproved by outstanding performance. Prejudice by a juror, though, incapacitates that juror from deciding how the law applies to the facts of the case, which precludes the juror from ascertaining whether there is any doubt about the defendant's guilt. It is as if the Professor would fail a previous p/f student because that student took one course via p/f, which, to me, sounds a little egregious, yes.
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with any of this. In both instances, it is probable that evidence/information will be received by decision makers that pushes them toward one end of the continuum of being convinced or not being convinced. Something still seems to bug me though, and I'm not sure exactly what it is. Perhaps I think the Professor will get sound information in which to base a judgement and issue a grade that is objective, whereas the objectivity of information a juror receives is necessarily less clear cut; after all, the entire trial exists to weigh jurors toward 1 or 0 with very little as black and white as midterm or final examinations in a calc class. The Professor can be proven wrong. A juror, well, something else is going on: his/her judging "faculty" is restricted because of the need to formulate his/her opinion based on all the evidence. And, that evidence is never right or wrong... in some way, other jurors operate to mitigate overly certain jurors, let's say, because one juror with a predujice will have to convince others based on evidence received. Whether that converstaion sticks to evidence the judge told the jurors to "forget" or not is another question... in fact, whether any deliberative process is better at assigning law to facts accurately is a question in itself, but there's some difference between the weight a defendant exhibits by not taking the stand relative to his guilt as compared to a grade in a class... I presume calc test grades determine most of the final grade. There are all sorts of pieces of information that might come into a courtroom that carry the same or more weight than not taking the stand (like prior bad acts, veracity of witnesses, etc) and all have their own unique rules... ostensibly guided toward giving jurors limited/fair information.
ReplyDeleteall fair questions... let me study evidence for a few days and return with something to say..
ReplyDeleteOkay. Well, half of "evidence" (meaning the very specific evidence one needs to study to be a lawyer) deals with what the jury is allowed to hear. The other half has to deal with whether witnesses are credible. Impossibly squeezed between those two halves is the important issue of character of the defendant and authentication of evidence.
ReplyDeleteAs supremely interesting or boring (this varies by the hour) this may be, one thing does ring true, and that is this: the system is trying to allow jurors to have access to the least prejudiced information possible, which would lead us, as jurors, to process information and weigh it toward one side.. My qualms with this only go so far: I'm entirely unsure that jurors (or people generally) will be able to calculate and process information based on the statements of other people in a way that allows definitive, or relatively definitive, agreement as to the culpability of a defendant--agreement that, as it stands, approaches the level of necessary legal agreement to send someone to prison or jail. Interesting to try to change standards in law to bayesian standards though, and there's gotta be some work out there approaching this translation...
That's true. The alternative (no 5th amendment protection against forced testimony) might be that a guilty defendant become more obviously guilty if forced to testify, though, and perhaps we don't want forced or compelled testimony that tends to incriminate (as a general policy). I'm really not sure. The game seems to be about hiding information, not bringing it to light.
ReplyDelete