|
I love the theoretical, idealistic conception of the system of trial by a jury of your peers. But I hate the reality that is a system of justice which does everything in its power to manipulate juries into being predictable and malleable cogs in the justice machine. Bear in mind that I am referring to the American system – I don’t know enough about the idiosyncrasies elsewhere to comment.
Most of the complaints about jury duty that you folks have put forward so far are with regards to the compensation, which is quite poor. I am forced to agree that it is a serious problem. First of all, it tends to make people less-than-enthusiastic about their jury duty, which could adversely affect their performance of that duty. Second, it disproportionately results in intelligent, motivated, career-driven individuals being excluded from serving (since they actively seek to be excused). These are exactly the type of people who should be on a jury, not Jack the unemployed alcoholic.
But before I go into further detail with what I perceive as the grim reality of jury duty, I’d like to spend a little time talking about how great it could be – potentially.
Jury duty and voting are the only two ways that your average citizen can directly affect the workings of the government which presides over us. However, while the effect of our votes may have more collective influence on the direction of our nation, or state, or county, than any decisions made during deliberation, serving as a juror provides us with the unique opportunity to have considerable influence on one very particular case, not just one vote among thousands, or millions. Your actions and choices as a juror can profoundly affect the lives of many people involved either directly or indirectly in the case which you are assigned to.
Particularly noteworthy, as I mentioned in my original post, is the power of jury nullification. Most jurors are completely uninformed of the extent of their rights and responsibilities. When you are called for jury duty, your responsibility is not to carefully weigh the evidence presented in court, apply it literally to the exact wording of the applicable laws, and mechanically reach whatever verdict this formula leads you to. No, your responsibility is one thing: justice.
If you, as a juror, believe that justice requires you to refuse to enforce a law, you are not only well within your rights to refuse to do so, but also have a responsibility to vote in whatever manner you feel will bring about a just resolution to the matters at hand. If you feel a law is inherently wrong, or is being applied to a situation in which it doesn’t make sense, or that the accused is being made an example of, you can refuse to convict on those grounds alone, and there isn’t a damn thing that any lawyer or judge can do about it. If you feel it is appropriate, you also have the right to reduce the charges against the defendant – as long as there are “lesser included offenses” specified in law. You can ask the judge to list and explain them, along with the potential punishments that go along with each, if it helps you reach a just verdict.
In a very real sense, jury duty is the last remnant of direct democracy. Your power as juror is absolute. You can make whatever decision you feel is just, and no one can question you about it. Because of this, I really like the idea of trial by jury. It puts the power back in the hands of the people. But, alas, the reality of the situation is quite different.
To understand why it is different, you have to understand how juries are selected: that is, by the lawyers involved in the case. The lawyers do not like this idealistic jury. They would much prefer a jury which would believe whatever they told them to be the absolute truth, and apply the evidence presented in predictable ways. Hence, the vast majority of lawyers seek to stock the jury with people they feel can be easily manipulated.
The result is that it’s genuinely difficult for any qualified person to get onto a jury. Do you have a generous educational background? Bye. Do you have strong philosophical, political, or ethical opinions? Next please. Are you aware of the world around you, keeping up with world events? Get out. Do you have a good job, a position which holds great responsibility and requires strong decision-making skills? Forget about it. Are you fully informed of your rights and responsibilities as a juror? Go home.
And so juries are stocked with mindless, ignorant automatons. The lawyers each try to manipulate the jury, and whoever is the better manipulator wins. Somewhere along the way, the concept of justice got lost.
The result?
Murders walk free.
Innocent men are put to death.
Morons get multi-million dollar settlements for their own stupidity.
It is a difficult puzzle to solve. First, people need to want the opportunity to be a juror, rather than resenting it. Hence, I would propose forcing their employers to pay them overtime for the duration of the juror’s service. Self-employed jurors could receive a generous compensation from the state. Second, lawyers can’t select juries. It defeats the purpose of having a jury. There are other and better ways to remove potentially biased jurors than having the lawyers on each side of a case interrogate them and throw away anyone they don’t like.
That’s all I have to say right now, but maybe I’ll add some more later. Any comments?
|
