Ewen Macdonald: (Vile) trial by opinion poll
This appeared on stuff.co.nz and in Fairfax papers last week:
After a harrowing trial that gripped the nation, a survey has revealed just one in five New Zealanders think Ewen Macdonald did not murder his brother-in-law Scott Guy.
A jury of 11 handed down a not guilty verdict to Macdonald, 32, last week, after a month-long trial in the High Court at Wellington.
But results to be made public by market research company UMR today show just 20 per cent of people surveyed agreed with Ewen Macdonald being acquitted of slaying Mr Guy outside his rural Feilding home in July 2010.
Living in New Zealand means agreeing to deal with criminal allegations transparently in the courtroom, not the court of (ill-informed, speculative) public opinion. The only people with the information on which to make an informed opinion are members of the jury – and they have delivered a verdict that police will not appeal. What was UMR thinking?
Atakohu Middleton is an Auckland journalist with a keen interest in the way the media uses/abuses data. She happens to be married to a statistician. See all posts by Atakohu Middleton »
My immediate reaction to this was similar to yours but it’s not completely clear it is the right one.
The jury act as arbiters of justice not the truth. Reasonable people may disagree with the jury verdict.
For example, after the Bain retrial Martin van Beyen published a considered opinion piece in the Press (and this follow-up) stating that he thought the jury was wrong. Was he wrong to express that opinion?
The system itself cater for a nuanced view of guilt. There are many instances of someone being found not guilty in a criminal trial but found liable in a civil trial due to the differing standards of proof.
Given the wall-to-wall daily coverage and massive public interest in this, the public was probably better informed about this trial than they are about the vast majority of topics on which they are asked to give their opinions.
I guess the ickyness of the poll comes from the idea that the normative behaviour here is to presume innocence and maintain that presumption until a jury decides otherwise. Taking the poll recognises that many people deviate from that norm and form their own opinion. Publishing the poll feels like a nudge away from the norm. Given the lack of nuance and context in any poll, it is probably not the right tool to achieve this.
12 years ago
Great points, David. It’s a fascinating set of ideas to debate. I feel that informed and reasoned opinion from a journalist attending every day of a court case is OK, but a poll of the general public can reflect only what the media chooses to transmit. I can’t help feeling that both Fairfax and UMR, in the names of their own profiles, are attempting to push ethical boundaries in a wired world beyond what’s acceptable to most of us. Legally they may be on solid ground, but socially, morally and ethically? And I can’t even begin to imagine how the Macdonald family feels about this. Let the debate continue!
12 years ago
I agree with Julie Middleton’s views. In my view, publication of this poll has the effect of publically flogging, or giving a “verdict”, whether the author intends it or not. In saying this I make no claim about the author’s views, or that of the organisation they work for.
It has been suggested to me that the author might have wanted to spark a debate about introducing a “Not Proven” option, in addition to “guilty” or “not guilty”. I would not be opposed to that, although I think there has got to be another way.
12 years ago
It needs to be pointed out that the criterion for conviction is”beyond reasonable doubt”, not “on the balance of prabability”. Thus the verdict and the poll are not inconsistent. Similarly the issue of compensation for David BA in depends on “balance of probability” and so is not settled by the verdict in that case.
12 years ago