Danny Masterson, Jerry Sandusky, and the limits of belief

The criminal justice system is like a desktop icon. It is used, but few people understand its inner workings.

Donald D. Hoffman has an interesting idea: evolution drives truth to extinction. 

As I understand his theory, the time and energy one consumes in acquiring accurate information to make a better decision, is less time and energy used to enjoy the consequences of the decision. As a group, those who make choices with less information and understanding are more likely to thrive, because there is actually very little we need to know. 

As Hoffman says, the icon on your computer screen does not in any way reflect the inner workings, the "reality" of the program it represents. But we don't have to understand them to use them.

Most of us admit we know little about how computers work. We should apply the same humility to the news. Data points may be true, but conclusions might not be true. For instance:

Data point #1: Steve McNair and Jenni Kazemi are found dead from gunshots in McNair's apartment.

Data point #2: "Nashville police conclude that Jenni killed Steve and then herself."

Conclusion: Jenni killed Steve and then herself.

Really?

I don't know for sure if Kazemi committed this crime, and the only reason to believe it is that the police said so. Of course, Kazemi isn't alive to defend herself from the allegation. But nothing is "true'' just because the police say so.

In the years before Jeffrey Epstein's death, other prominent persons  (who shall remain nameless here because I'm not interested in rehashing their cases) were found hanged, and the local police ruled them suicides. I had my doubts, but felt no need to express them; I wasn't privy to inside information, and wasn't interested in being lectured each time that "depression is a very real and hidden disease." I knew that already.    

But I cringe when I encounter mentions of the deceased and their supposed suicides are treated as fact. We don't know that. The only fact we know is that they were found hanged.

Only yesterday, I read a story from LA Magazine about preliminary hearings in Danny Masterson's rape case. "Accusers" and "victims" are used interchangeably in the story, which could sway public opinion against Masterson, who's supposedly innocent until proven guilty. That he's been accused of rape, and that he's been charged with rape, doesn't make him a rapist.

And accusers aren’t necessarily victims.

Masterson may be convicted. Even then, if I were to write about him, I would mention he was "convicted of rape" rather than say that he's a  "convicted rapist." I know the former, I may believe the latter, but I don't know it.

The criminal justice system is, in one way, like a desktop icon. It is used, but few people understand its inner workings. 

In another, more important way, it's not like an icon at all. Humans, not machines, produce the outcomes. You can't assume its rulings are true the same way you can assume that clicking the Google Chrome icon will launch Google Chrome.

And really, there's no need to actually believe any particular judge's ruling or a jury's decision. That they (supposedly) attempt to arrive at the truth, doesn't mean they succeed. At the same time, unbelief isn't the same as disbelief. The system isn't always wrong, and it's nobody's responsibility to do deep dives into every case. As Hoffman points out, the time and energy required to get all the information about everything is not conducive to survival.

But it is safer to be skeptical. One big takeaway of John Ziegler and Liz Habib's podcast With the Benefit of Hindsight… is the naivety of Jerry Sandusky in assuming the "system" will work in his favor because he knew he was innocent and the case against him was weak.

Fame and a sterling reputation won't necessarily save even the clearly innocent. And innocence won't, by itself, save you or a loved one when the State brings felony charges. Don't assume "good faith" on the part of prosecutors; assume they're out to get a conviction to enhance their personal scorecards and careers. They must be fought as if one's life is on the line.

That's a little bit of truth, a dose of reality, that we should all be aware of.

James Leroy Wilson writes from Nebraska. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter. If you find value in his articles, your support through Paypal helps keep him going. Permission to reprint is granted with attribution. You may contact him for your writing, editing, and research needs: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.