‘I don’t know why, but I must be right.’

An issue has been discussed, which seems to be particularly interesting in terms of 'fast and frugal' way of conclusion reaching in relation to conscious and subconscious decision making. The idea here is to introduce some real-life cases and confront them with rational/conscious versus subconscious conclusion-drawing or judging process. I hope that any potential readers would find these cases at least a bit more amusing than a coroner’s report.

Case 1: Probability
A body of a female with several head injuries had been found. It was discovered that those were caused by an axe which was found next to her body (Keiser-Nielsen, 1984). Without second thoughts we would presume that she must had been a victim of a homicide, as we would not believe that someone would want to commit suicide with the use of an axe. Nevertheless, the death was accepted as the "most unusual case of suicide" and was reported by Willy Munck in his journal (1937).

Now we may have imagination, but I guess I am not the only one who would presume that this had to be a homicide case. Obviously, this is an extreme example and there must have been some information that determined a particular decision, but this interesting model shows us how quickly a judgment or misjudgement can be formed, when based on one rational aspect. My guess is that our judgment in this case is a result of the juxtaposition of probabilities related to a single piece of information. But who would expect someone to commit suicide by finding a way to make a car run him over?

Case 2: Order and vision
Entry begins with: ‘Case NO 13: Homicide by stabbing’. The accused enters the room with a ‘very sorry face’, does not talk, keeps his head low and sits down. The evidence is being presented and the legally-unprofessional judges (lay magistrates) learn that the accused wanted to rob a jewellery shop with the use of knife; but as the shopkeeper decides to defend his property, the accused stabs him – lethally. There are fingerprints, DNA samples etc.; the defendant’s statement says: ‘I am guilty of causing unintentional harm with a weapon while committing an act that is legally prohibited’. The decision – in favour for unconditional custody - is reached in approx. 20 minutes.
Following case begins with similar entry: ‘Case NO 14: Homicide by stabbing’. The accused enters the room under same circumstances – does not talk, keeps his head low and even acts as if he did not pay any attention at all to what is happening around him. He does not have a statement; he also does not answer any questions addressed to him. In less than 2 minutes, a decision based on arguments from the previous case is made and the accused remains in custody awaiting the trial.

Let us assume that the first accused had good lawyers and was found guilty of committing a robbery and giving unintentional harm that caused death as a consequence. The second story is actually a real one. A 30 year old male was later found guilty of first degree murder. The problem is that in reality he killed an individual, who raped and killed his wife as he recognised the murderer’s face in the elevator one day after the rape/kill (the perpetrator was a new neighbour). He did not abandon the scene - the neighbours called the police once they saw him sitting in a pool of blood. Throughout the trial he suffered from depression, variety of mental disorders such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in terms of developing sense of helplessness.
From the ‘Bailing and Jailing’ article (Dhami, Ayton 2001) we know that the order, in which the evidence is presented in court can influence the decision made by judges. However, it seems reasonable to underline that the order of cases could also be significant. If two cases would be considered e.g. similar murder cases processed one after another, somehow we may refer to the first case (maybe subconsciously) in order to make a decision on the next one - especially if the judges do not possess professional knowledge or experience. For instance, women tend to think that they can get raped by a stranger, rather than by someone they actually know. But according to the statistics, in 73 – 75% of the cases, the perpetrator was a non-stranger (rainn.org; Buss 2006) and 38% of them are friends or acquaintances. If the jury or lay-magistrates were familiar with facts related to a certain case, maybe the judging process that they are involved in would be much more thorough.

This post may be a little bit abstract sometimes (hopefully not as trying to answer incomplete questions such as: Is it better for women to wear pink tops rather than high-heel shoes?), but will possibly give you a new perspective to think from.

References:

Buss, D. (2006) "The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill"

Dhami, M.K., Ayton, P. (2001). Bailing and jailing the fast and frugal way. Journal of Behavioural
Decision Making, 14, 141-168.

Keiser-Nielsen H. (1984) Zeitschrift für Rechtsmedizin; 93(2): 135-41.

Statistics for rape: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders