Truth and the Making of a Murderer

Marchesk

In case you live under a rock, the Netflix documentary, 'Making of a Murderer', presents the trial and conviction of Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Avery had been previously exonerated for a rape he was falsely convicted of, and had a pending lawsuit against the County. Steven maintained his innocence throughout the murder trial, and claimed he was being framed, which his defense team used to suggest that various pieces of evidence where either tampered with or improperly analyzed.

Everyone has their own opinion as to Mr. Avery's guilt, the fairness of the trial, whether law enforcement was out to frame him, and whether Brendan's confessions were false. That is being debated ad nauseum on places such as Reddit.

What I'm interested is the philosophical angle here. What everyone is assuming is that there is an actual truth to the matter. There is a state of affairs in which Teresa Halbach is killed a certain way by a certain person or persons in a certain manner. But according to some philosophical positions, argued by some posters on here, there is no such truth or state of affairs.

Instead, there are just everyone's experiences. You have the jury's experiences of sitting through the trial and then having to decide if the standard for reasonable doubt was met. You have the investigators and their experiences of finding (or planting) evidence. You have Avery and Brendan's experience. And you have the experience of millions of people having watched the documentary. Even more radically, some have argued there is no past, just the present experience of memories.

But if there is no truth to a crime, then why the dog and pony show of having trials and convicting people? If there is no actual way in which Ms. Halbach was killed, then why do we care so much? I think we care, because this is a situation where the rubber meets the road, and we all think someone did murder her a certain way, and the jury is supposed to decide whether the prosecution showed this beyond reasonable doubt. We're all realists when it comes to murder. It's crazy to think otherwise.

BC

I think crimes are real, that people really do get murdered, and that various weapons and methods are used to commit murder (or any other crime).

There can be, however, the sense of a charade in a trial. In police procedurals, there are, for instance, debates between investigators and DAs about whether a case should be brought to trial. Then there is the matter of witnesses: we know witnesses have varying degrees of reliability. Eye witness accounts can be far off the mark without the eye witness realizing it. We know that the quality of the defense matters a great deal. A "presumed innocent" defendant represented by a really incompetent court appointed attorney may be screwed. Judges may not be impartial, and juries might be tampered with. Juries might also be swayed by factors that do not bear on the case, like the race of the defendant and the nature of the crime.

It's unlikely (I certainly hope so, anyway) that all of these conditions would occur in the same trail. But... we know that the wrong person has been accused, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and punished by courts that were operating more or less normally.

All of this can make one wonder whether there is anything solid and rational about some courts, some trials. Was OJ Simpson innocent or guilty? I don't know, but it seems like he may have not gotten a fair trial. Perhaps he escaped justice -- beat the rap. Don't know. But one wonders...

Even if the court system is as crooked as can be, it is still all real. If there is deception, false recall of non-existent evidence, deceit, bias, and so on, it is real bias, real deceit, real faulty witnesses and real deception. Things that actually happen, and that have real world consequences.

unenlightened

There are of course no trials or convictions, merely experiences of such. There is no rubber meeting no road, merely experiences of rubber meeting experiences of road.

The problem with such radical subjectivism/phenomenology is not that it is inconsistent, but that it does no explanatory work. One ends up talking and behaving exactly as if there were facts of the matter and simply brackets everything with 'experience of' which becomes meaningless to just the extent that there is nothing that is not 'experience of'.

When I want to waste time in this way, I usually preface my remarks with 'It seems to me...'; the rest of the time I just pontificate. But in the particular case, I live under a rock.

Michael

There are of course no trials or convictions, merely experiences of such. — unenlightened

Not quite. The claim is that there are trials and convictions and that these trials and convictions are subjective/phenomenal. After all, we don't say that there's no pain, merely experiences of pain.

There is no rubber meeting no road, merely experiences of rubber meeting experiences of road.

Actually it's that there's the experience of rubber meeting road.

One ends up talking and behaving exactly as if there were facts of the matter and simply brackets everything with 'experience of' which becomes meaningless to just the extent that there is nothing that is not 'experience of'.

How is bracketing everything with "experience of" any different to bracketing everything with "fact of the matter"? If the former leads to meaninglessness then why not the latter? Furthermore, the claim is that the experience is the fact of the matter, so one "ends up talking and behaving exactly as if there were facts of the matter" because there are facts of the matter. It's just that the facts of the matter are experiential (and subjects of discourse in the case of the unobserved) rather than something else.

The problem with such radical subjectivism/phenomenology is not that it is inconsistent, but that it does no explanatory work.

And how does the alternative offer an explanation? Rather than just say "we experience X" the 'explanation' is "we experience X because something other than the experience happens". Is that really much of an explanation? Seems like a God-of-the-gaps.

And perhaps there is no explanation. Explanations must come to an end somewhere. So why not at the phenomenal?

unenlightened

How is bracketing everything with "experience of" any different to bracketing everything with "fact of the matter"? If the former leads to meaninglessness then why not the latter? Furthermore, the claim is that the experience is the fact of the matter, so one "ends up talking and behaving exactly as if there were facts of the matter" because there are facts of the matter. It's just that the facts of the matter are experiential (and subjects of discourse in the case of the unobserved) rather than something else. — Michael

Well the fact of the matter is that I don't generally preface my remarks with 'The fact of the matter...' - at least, that's my experience. ;)

I quite agree that universalising in either direction is meaningless. There are facts of the world, and there are experiences of the world, and I find it handy to distinguish them at times. In this way I can talk about what happened and what the jury thought happened, and envision the possibility that the jury were mistaken.

Marchesk

And how does the alternative offer an explanation? Rather than just say "we experience X" the 'explanation' is "we experience X because something other than the experience happens". Is that really much of an explanation? Seems like a God-of-the-gaps.

And perhaps there is no explanation. Explanations must come to an end somewhere. So why not at the phenomenal? — Michael

The problem here Michael is that we prosecute crimes as if there is an explanation, and something did happen beyond "we experience X".

Take for example someone charged with a murder and the defense maintains that it was an accident. Maybe the victim fell down the stairs instead of being pushed, or what have you. Maybe the accused didn't even see it happen. Now, is there a truth to what happened? If no, then why does society bother trying to figure out? Why investigate, why prosecute, why convict?

Michael

Now, is there a truth to what happened? If no, then why does society bother trying to figure out? Why investigate, why prosecute, why convict? — Marchesk

Why? Because society believes that there is a truth to what happened. I'm unsure what you're trying to show here. That realism is true? Or that prior to metaphysical analysis our default way of thinking is one that's consistent with realism? Are you trying to describe human behaviour or establish a philosophically robust defence of a metaphysical theory?

The default way of thinking is usually moral realism, too, and we act as if such an account is true. But, upon further reflection, many find it an untenable position.

mcdoodle

But if there is no truth to a crime, then why the dog and pony show of having trials and convicting people? If there is no actual way in which Ms. Halbach was killed, then why do we care so much? I think we care, because this is a situation where the rubber meets the road, and we all think someone did murder her a certain way, and the jury is supposed to decide whether the prosecution showed this beyond reasonable doubt. We're all realists when it comes to murder. It's crazy to think otherwise. — Marchesk

I think we mutually consent to a highly-developed system of justice, and the 'fairness' we expect of justice runs deep in us: you can hear young children playing arguing fervently about fairness. So, on the contrary to you, I feel we recognize the workings of justice as a form of drama, in which the stakes are as high as the potential sentence - not to mention all the other stakes involved, from the bereaved's desire for satisfaction, to the investigators' and lawyers' reputations, to the public's wishes as audience.

We care very much because we care about human life, empathize with the sufferers (and the investigators and judiciary), and believe in some sort of fairness which is embodied in our judicial system. The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' suggests to me that 'truth' as you call it is on a scale, here, and that that factor is re-emphasized by the 'lower' standard of proof in civil cases, where the balance of probabilities is all that needs to be taken account of. This is drama, probabilistic in its judgments, but the actors' lives are exactly as portrayed by themselves. I don't see what 'realism' has to do with it at all. (But then, I used to write crime fiction so maybe I'm irreparably tainted by that :) )

The Great Whatever

But if there is no truth to a crime, then why the dog and pony show of having trials and convicting people? — Marchesk

Pain and confusion, attempting to instill a moral order on the universe. Ultimately like most conventions it's rooted in self-hatred.

Marchesk

↪The Great Whatever

If we're talking about being angry at a storm or cancer, then you might have a point. But we're talking about murder, as in one human taking another human's life.

Also, I don't get where self-hatred comes into play here. The family grieves the loss of a loved one and wants justice, since someone is at fault. Society wants the murderer put away.

The Great Whatever

↪Marchesk

But humans are like natural disasters. You can't control what they do, and killing them doesn't bring back your loved one any more than trying to kick a tornado does.

Ciceronianus

Everyone is really a realist. Which is to say that we all treat the rest of the world of which we're a part just as we would if we were all realists, rendering philosophical debate in this area for the most part one over a difference which makes no difference. But that's just me.

The Making of a Murderer is interesting only as an example of manipulation, gullibility and the disturbing power of social media in an age where nobody takes the time to think, being consumed by the need to react, in print or on video, as quickly as possible.

Benkei

Season 2 is out. I'm almost done with it.

Any thoughts from the US based lawyers @Ciceronianus the White and @Hanover?

Hanover

↪Benkei

In case you live under a rock, the Netflix documentary, 'Making of a Murderer', presents the trial and conviction of Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, for the murder of Teresa Halbach — Marchesk

It turns out I live under a rock, never having heard of this documentary. I might watch it now though. I don't watch much TV or Netflix. I can't get the interwebs to go through my TV box right now, and I don't feel like calling the Hopper people to splain it to me. Maybe this'll motivate me.

Allen S

Never watched it. I've heard it's a controversial take on the case. Might watch it sometime in the near future and then report back with my view re: the philosophical angle.

Ciceronianus

↪Benkei

Mere sensationalism. The creators of the "documentary" have acknowledged they left out evidence, claiming there was too much to include and none of the items they failed to disclose are significant. That's disputed, of course. There's no credible evidence someone else killed the poor woman. A couple of journalism students made it big, and want to stay that way.

Benkei

↪Ciceronianus the White

is that based on what you've seen?

Edit: For instance, I thought the Dassey discussion on coercion in the en banc hearing was interesting. That was split 4-3 against Dassey. It surprised me as it was clear the most important aspects of the murder were fed to him (as recognised in the dissenting opinions). The "details" Dassey offered could just as well been fabrications and aren't corroborated by any other facts. She was stabbed but no knife was found for instance (and I checked, that evidence wasn't left out). Admittedly, it wasn't clear what special care the court in first instance applied to the scrutiny of his testimony and that the split is the result of the AEDPA test of "no reasonable judge could agree", which is a bloody high standard.

Zellner found a lot of new evidence so the denial of the evidentiary hearing was a surprise too. The DA more or less back-pedaling on an earlier agreement for scheduling an evidentiary hearing was in my view unethical.

Ciceronianus

↪Benkei

Well, if the point being made is that there were problems with the proceedings, that certain evidence was ignored or given short-shrift, that Dassey (who is a sympathetic figure) shouldn't have been interrogated as he was, that members of the sheriff's department shouldn't have been as involved in the investigation as they were, that the Special D.A. (from outside of the county) did things or didn't do things, etc., that the courts did things or didn't do things, welcome to the world of the law. Such has been, is and will be the case to a greater or lesser degree with every prosecution, every jury trial, every appeal. This shouldn't be surprising.

But that isn't the point, is it? If it was, we wouldn't be discussing the "documentary." The title--"The Making of a Murderer"--itself tells us what point the creators of the piece intend to make. No court has agreed with them. That may be the function of the standard of review on appeal, but if so then the question is whether the standard of review should be changed, which is another question entirely.

This is the exploitation of a tragedy.

As for the basis of my opinion, I'm loathe to do anything which would reveal in any respect my secret identity. I'm not anyone associated with or involved in any stage of the proceedings, thank God. But I know some who were, and have some knowledge of certain of those involved, and of the circumstances, and of the law.

Terrapin Station

But if there is no truth to a crime, then why the dog and pony show of having trials and convicting people? If there is no actual way in which Ms. Halbach was killed, then why do we care so much? — Marchesk

Because thankfully, the percentage of people who believe anything like "there is no such truth or state of affairs, instead, there are just everyone's experiences" is very small.

Unfortunately the percentage of posters on this board who believe something like that is quite high. But this is a very unusual place in that.

Benkei

↪Ciceronianus the White

Maybe it is exploitation. Or it is activism. Or its about the US court system as illustrated by this tragedy. I find it hard to place it.

I remember from my studies (1998-2004) that, based on research in the 90s (and now also since then), the investigative techniques employed by the DA and police didn't work in a lot of cases. The most fundamental problem is that law enforcement and DAs pursue and search for evidence that corroborate their hypothesis instead of trying to find evidence that disproves it. While I was trained (and those that wanted to specialise in the DA work would continue to train for it) to approach investigations in that way, the reality was "old timers" thought they could "smell it" or had a "sixth sense" for who the perps were and who weren't. To this day, the change in culture still hasn't taken fully hold after nearly 20 years of law enforcement and DAs being aware of it in the Netherlands. And the Netherlands is tiny, where such a change should be relatively easy to accomplish.

I'm probably rather biased based on my knowledge as a student and what I now know from former fellow students working in the field. That said, the stuff this documentary bring up fits perfectly with the criticism leveled against investigative techniques since years. I suspect too much of it is true for the convictions having a lot of value.

Truth and the Making of a Murderer

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions