Editorial August 3, 1992 Issue

The misuse of evidence

Nathan A. Talbot

Things are not always what they seem to be. In fact, things can be made to appear quite different from what they really are. Christian Scientists and the public have been exposed to a classic example of how evidence can be presented in a way that leads to deep misrepresentations. The misuse of evidence can mislead those who want to know what's true.

This "classic example" came in the form of prosecuting Christian Scientist parents who relied on a spiritual method of treatment instead of the more conventional approach of medical care. The evidence collected by the state assumed the guilt—and was artfully crafted to "prove" the guilt—of the parents. Since the best efforts of the Christian Scientists had not led to success in treatment, this fact added a lot of weight to the presumption of guilt. The prosecution's evidence, when presented selectively and in a calculated way, would make it hard for many to believe anything but that the parents were wrong, that they should have taken a different course of action, that they failed to do what the "reasonable" person would have done.

When one looks at the way a prosecutor can marshal his evidence, it may appear to the public that a verdict of guilt is the only possible conclusion. After all, much if not all of the evidence appears to be simply factual. But consider the "spin" that can be put on a "fact" when a prosecutor deeply disagrees with the course of action chosen by a Christian Scientist. He offers, for instance, indisputable evidence that Christian Scientists don't accept disease as real, falsely suggesting that they simply ignore it. He implies that parents were obviously blinded by religious dogma and therefore really did nothing to care for the child's illness.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

Waiting for wonders?