evidence – Page 5 – understand-culture

Salem Witch Trials

There is a long history of witness testimony being given an excessive amount of weight in American trials. One prominent example of this is the Salem Witch Trials.

In January of 1692, two young girls (9-year-old Elizabeth Parris and 11-year-old Abigail Williams) from Salem Village, Massachusetts, began having fits, including violent contortions and uncontrollable screaming. Although a modern study suggests that these fits were the result of the children consuming the fungus ergot, which can be found in rye, wheat, and other cereals, at the time, the local doctor diagnosed bewitchment. Shortly thereafter, other young girls in the community began to exhibit similar symptoms, and three local women were arrested after the girls accused them of witchcraft.

Two of the women denied using witchcraft, however, the third, Tituba, a slave from the Caribbean confessed, probably hoping to save herself by acting as an informer. As part of her confession, Tituba claimed that there were other witches in the community that had acted alongside her.

This led to mass hysteria within the town of Salem, and soon many more people had been accused of and arrested for witchcraft. In the trials that followed, the primary evidence that was used for a conviction was witness testimony. In fact, some of the witness testimony that was presented wasn’t given by people who had seen the accused practicing witchcraft, but by people who had had dreams or visions of the accused practicing witchcraft. Altogether 19 people were hanged for witchcraft, 7 accused witches died in jail, and one man was pressed to death by stones for refusing to plea.

Eventually the trials were deemed unlawful, and in 1711 Massachusetts Colony passed legislation that restored the good names of those convicted of witchcraft, as well as provided financial restitution for their heirs. In 1953, Arthur Miller used the Salem Witch Trials as the basis for his play “The Crucible,” which he published during the Red Scare (a time of growing fear against communism during the 1950s) in an attempt to remind Americans not to rely primarily on witness testimony when judging innocence or guilt.

„Show good judgement“

All parents in all cultures strive to teach their children how to show or exercize good judgement. They want to prepare them for difficult situations in life, in which they will have to make difficult decisions, without the benefit of parental help. American parents will, time and again, advise their children to show good judgement.

Judges – team leads – base their judgement on three sources: on any existing laws, regulations, statutes, rules, regulations; on precedents, meaning how those laws, regulations, etc. have been previously applied; and on the specific circumstances of the conflict. Good – fair – judgement balances the influence of all three.

The higher in the American legal system one looks, the older the average age is of the judges. Americans equate judgement with wisdom. And wisdom is based on intelligence and experience. It is defined as: Accumulated philosophic or scientific learning; ability to discern inner qualities and relationships, insight; good sense; generally accepted belief; a wise attitude, belief, or course of action; the teachings of the ancient wise men. Middle English, from Old English wīsdōm, from wīs wise. First known use before 12th century

A judge conducts a trial in an open court. The judge is impartial. Judges hear witnesses and any other evidence presented by the conflict parties. Judges assess the credibility and arguments of the parties, then issue a ruling based on their interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some cases, the judge’s powers may be shared with a jury.

Americans expect their managers to resolve a conflict the way a judge would rule on a case: impartially, considering all of the facts and witness testimony (if any), using their own common sense and experience, but not in any way sharing their responsibility to „make the call“ with other members of management (no jury).

To judge

Judge: To form an opinion through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises; to sit in judgement of, to try; to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation; to govern, rule; to form an estimate or evaluation of; to form an opinion; to decide as a judge. Middle English juggen, from Anglo-French juger, from Latin judicare.

Mediate: Occupying a middle position; acting through an intervening agency; exhibiting indirect causation, connection, or relation. From Late Latin mediatus intermediate.

Fact: A thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality. From Latin factum.

Witness: Attestation of a fact or event; one that gives evidence; specifically: one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal; one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place; one who has personal knowledge of something; something serving as evidence or proof; public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction. Middle English witnesse, from Old English witnes knowledge, testimony, witness, from wit.

Testimony: The tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law, the ark containing the tablets; a divine decree attested in the Scriptures; firsthand authentication of a fact; a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official; an open acknowledgment. Middle English testimonie, Latin testimonium, from testis witness.

References

Conflict in a team affects its people. People have personal perspectives. Subjective, not objective. Both real and a factor. Opinion counts, for it is among the fundamental drivers of behavior.

Americans value as evidence both facts and personal opinion. See an American curriculum vitae (resumé). It always either cites or offers references. See the sales/marketing efforts of any American company. They always either cite or offer a customer list. See the American judicial system. It always allows for supporting witness testimony.

Ask employees

In 2013 there was a lot of controversy regarding allegations of abuse against several members of the Miami Dolphins professional football team. As part of the NFL (National Football League) investigation into these claims, a report was put together analyzing the behavior of the players. This report was primarily based on emails, text messages, and more than a hundred interviews conducted with the Dolphins personnel.

In 2002 the founders of Google attempted to set up an organizational system without managers. After just a few months, however, their system fell apart. Following this, the founders decided to use the failed experiment to determine which characteristics are the most important for strong leaders.

To find these characteristics, the founders considered not only the factual details from the failed system, but they also relied heavily on such things as employee surveys and double-blind interviews.

In dubio pro reo

In German conflict situations, such as criminal law, the general rule “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, for the accused) applies. During the examination of a conflict and in reconstruction of the facts, it is requird that the judiciary be extremely accurate.

This means among other things, that subjective evidence, such as taking testimonies on the basis of assumptions (even though they might be accurate), are not sufficient indications of the facts. This protects the German defendants from unlawful decisions.

However, this also means that even if the subjective evidence is convincing, the prosecutor does not have the right to use it, unless and until objective evidence (e.g. reviewed testimonies, video- or tape recordings, images) verifies it.

If the prosecutor is not able to find such evidence and tries to support his argument by using subjective testimony, he still carries the burden of proof.

Let’s take the example of a prosecutor whose house was graffitied. The prosecutor does not know with certainty that the graffiti was actually done by the defendant, but he has a strong subjective presumption since the defendant is a well-known graffiti artist in the neighborhood.

The prosecutor carries the burden of proof. Relying only on subjective reasoning will lead to the lawsuit being rejected due to lack of conclusiveness.

Schlichter

The process of Schlichtung – arbitration, mediation, conciliation – is a bit different in every case. To get a sense for the process it is helpful to take a look at the Mediationsgesetz – mediation law, for there is actually a law in Germany supporting out-of-court arbitration.

The law states clearly that the Schlichter takes a neutral position during the mediation. She or he is to lead the conflict parties to a consensual (both agree freely) resolution of the conflict, so as to avoid the need for a court case.

The Schlichter speaks with each party separately in order to reconstruct the conflict as objectively as possible. But what does “objective” actually mean? The mediation law does not answer that question. It is the job of the Schlichter, typically via a long process, to find the truth.

The one conflict party tries to prove the guilt of the other party. That party, in turn, does their best to prove lack of guilt. The mediator does her best to get as objective a picture of the situation as possible.

Rekonstruktion

Rekonstruktion. Reconstruction. To rebuild; to explain an event, situation, thing as it once was; a work of art, music, literature, a physical thing such as a building or the behavior of people, an historical development.

Sich ein eigenes Bild von etwas machen. Literally to make for oneself a picture of something; to look at something with one‘s own eyes; to inform oneself at the scene.

Wahrheit. Truth; as it is, was; what is true, is lasting; what was truly the case, what is accurate.

Umstand. That which is present, literally standing around; what was present and influenced an event; contextual factors; an important, critical factor or influence.

Einordnen. To put into order, to fit in; to put in place within a system; to judge; to fit into an existing pattern or set-up; to size someone up, to get a read on.

Beweismaterial. Evidence; information relevant to a court case; to gather, secure, proof, destroy, hide evidence.

Rules of Mediation

The first rule is that the conflict resolution process is not the equivalent of a court case. The goal is not to judge either of the conflict parties, but to jointly find a solution to the problem.

Goodwill. It is expected of all parties involved that they act in good faith and are willing to compromise. The mediator should do no more than guide the discussion and help the conflict parties to recognize common ground. The conflict parties are asked to find a solution together. Only when that cannot be achieved, is the moderator expected to make concrete suggestions.

The mediator. Germans expect the moderator to be neutral, to listen patiently to both sides of the conflict, and to support the resolution process in a way which does not damage either party. Neither blame nor guilt should be attributed to either of the conflict parties. Instead, the mediator focuses on reconstructing events and describing the problem.

Heiner Geissler, a former high-ranking member of the Christian Democratic Party, is the most prominent of German mediator. Geißler has been brought in numerous times since 1997 to help resolve conflicts between companies and unions. He was in the national spotlight over the last few years in his attempt to help resolve a major political conflict in the state of Baden-Württemberg concerning a the reconstruction of the Stuttgart main train station.

Detective Shows

The German fascination with investigations and the reconstruction of events is evident in the popularity of crime novels and detective series on television. The story is always about figuring out the facts behind a crime. The show ends with the apprehension of the criminal and a reconstruction of the crime.

The most popular of German detective show is Tatort, literally Crime Scene, which began in 1970, has produced over 800 episodes, and attracts between 7 and 11 million viewers per show.

Soko 5113 began in 1978 and has run 40 sets of episodes. Both series have led to popular spin-offs. On any given evening, on any given channel in Germany, a detective show is being broadcasted. Many are co-productions involving teams from Germany, Great Britain, the U.S. and Skandanavian countries.