I have to admit that although I admire the brilliant simplicity of the American judicial system, I have never quite gotten used to the idea of a jury made up of laypeople like you and me determining the outcome of every imaginable criminal trial. Sure, I learned about the sixth and fourteenth Amendment it in 10th grade US History, and then again in 12th Honors Government. I understand that the principle behind the concept of a jury is that everyone is tried by a group of people who reflect a cross-section of the community; i.e, a group of “one’s peers”. I can even understand why this may seem a more reliable form of justice than a system whereby a single Judge decides on a case. But I still don’t worry that a trial by jury is simply not as reliable or accurate as a trial overseen by multiple judges, as currently is the case in the Netherlands.
Can we really depend on a jury to come to a fair, unbiased, and well-founded decision? To be honest, I don’t know. And for all the prattling I do about the use of topic sentences, proper grammar, and understanding world history, I’m not worried about that. I don’t care if people are smart, or even educated. I worry about people being biased, or worse, prejudiced. Now sure, you could argue that with a proper cross-section of the community, one should, technically speaking, have a jury that represents every possible political and religious views in the country. If you live further North or West, I will venture that perhaps that is an actual possibility. However, down here, far in the deep south, it is actually possible that you get a jury made up of nothing but semi-racist white people. And if you’re an African American male up for a crime committed against a white person, I can guarantee you you’re up a certain creek without a paddle.
Now let’s, for argument’s sake, assume that you can assemble a jury of relatively reasonable people. There’s a few men, a few women, some African Americans, a couple of white people, maybe a Latino or two, and a fair representation of the different religious beliefs in your reasonable jury. But in that case, I can’t help but wonder about all those studies out there about people’s limited ability to perceive, process, and retain information. Numerous studies have proven that people have a hard time remembering information that is not line with previously developed ideas. One study carried out in the 1940s proved that the majority of the people on a plane who witnessed a white man starting a fight, actually remembered an innocent black passenger as throwing the first punch. That scares me. And how about people tuning out? I know that sitting through grad school gave me a massive attention span, but that in spite of that even I tune out from time to time. Especially when I think I know what someone is going to say. Imagine that happening on a jury. Now I’m not saying this won’t happen to a Judge, but at least they have been trained to do this type of work.
Anyway, this is a very long and roundabout way to talk about the fact that Keith, one of my co-workers, was called up for jury duty this week. He had received the letter a few weeks earlier and was so excited he could barely see straight. Although Keith is a bleeding-heart liberal who lives to criticize anyone in power, he did honestly seem to want to serve his country. But more than that, he also has a very stressful job. Hence, Keith was also very much looking forward to getting away from the students, the administrators, the staff, and everyone else who pesters him on a daily basis. He had a series of books lined up he wanted to read during the selection process, and he and I spent many enjoyable coffee breaks speculating about the kind of case he had been called up for. He wondered about the possibility of being sequestered, while I wondered how many brands of fancy coffee creamer he could buy with the $25 he would be earning per day. What would it be like to serve on a jury in a part of the world that is not known for its open-mindedness? Keith was sure he would be selected, if only because he would be the only Democrat around.
So on Monday, as he left to report to the courthouse, I wished him a good time, but secretly hoped he would not stay away too long as our Department is horribly overworked with him there. But I had not expected the call thirty minutes later. There had been a plea-bargain, so there was no need for a jury after all. Keith was not a happy man. After all, his quiet time had just evaporated. As had my inside scoop on the American jury system. My heartfelt apologies to you, the reader. We'll just have to wait until Keith receives another letter. I'll keep you posted.
4 comments:
Guilty!
Reading your post, I thought about a book I recently read by Cass Sunstein, a law professor who's now working in the new administration. His book is about how groups often make poor or misinformed decisions. Even if you have a balanced jury, some members may withhold relevant information or viewpoints, and the more adamant group members may lead the rest of the group astray. Polling a group only seems to work well if the majority are in full possession of the facts and context. Scary!
In Holland, every case goes before a panel of judges? Sounds expensive to the taxpayer! That's the American in me talking ;-)
My husband got called to jury duty once too, and it ended the same way.
I got called all the time when I was a resident alien, but now that I am a citizen they haven't called yet. I dread it, for the same reasons. I feel like it is a huge responsibility.
Same as Annemiek, haven't been called the past ten years since becoming a citizen. I wouldn't mind a "simple" case, just to see how it all works from the inside.
Post a Comment