Defending Jacob

Andy justifies his actions to help Jacob as necessary in a flawed, fallible legal system. As ADA, Andy has an insider’s view into the criminal justice system, and he admits that the system wrongfully convicts many people: A jury vote is not an accurate way to determine the truth. He pokes fun at the open bias of Judges Rivera and French, and he paints Judge French in particular as a self-serving fame-seeker. He knows better than to entrust the life and future of his child to such a system.

Later in the novel, after learning that Laurie is the subject of a grand jury investigation, this theme takes on a new, more nuanced light. Laurie has been accused of the murder of her own son, Jacob, a possible serial killer. Andy states at this point that “the law is a hammer, not a scalpel” (215): it is unable to consider whether Laurie did something good or bad, right or wrong, legal or illegal in killing her son. 

The motif of crumbling institutions (see below) also informs this theme.

Throughout the novel, Andy uses his prosecutorial skills to cast doubt on the evidence against Jacob. This invites the reader to turn the same kind of analysis back on Andy’s own “testimony” (the novel itself). For example, Andy suggests that the Cutting Room story about Ben’s murder is not foolproof evidence of Jacob’s guilt: It is not certain that Jacob wrote the story, and only Derek has connected him to it. Therefore, the evidence is not necessarily reliable. 

When considering any piece of evidence against Jacob—the bloody thumbprint, the knife, the Cutting Room story, the blood on his hand—Andy encourages skepticism and alternate explanations. Andy’s alternate explanation for Ben’s murder is that Patz killed Ben after soliciting sex in the park. Andy believes Father O’Leary had Patz killed, so Patz’s signed confession must be discounted as evidence. In its place, Andy presents Matthew’s testimony. The reader is left to evaluate this evidence against Logiudice’s case.