Everyday citizens control the fate of alleged criminals through jury deliberation. I am not sure how to feel about this. Can we trust fellow man to establish the truth proposed in a court case? Some of whom may be uneducated, impatient, unconcerned or easily manipulated. According to political scientists Erin York and Benjamin Cornwell in "Social Characteristics and Influence in the Jury Room," upper-class male jurors have the most influence over verdicts. Therefore, when the more reserved and shy juror or the lower-class inner city man speaks, his opinions are seldom taken seriously. The strong-willed, attractive and successful jurors control the conversation. York and Cornwell wonder if the unsettling news brings distrust for the justice system from the lower and middle class. As a member of the middle class, I'll say that it does not make me happy but it does not particularly bother me either. If proven true within deliberation, this fact is also true in everyday life. This is just another reason to work hard and hope it pays off.
There's a larger issue within the jury deliberation process. According to political scientists Douglas W. Maynard and John F. Manzo in "On the Sociology of the Jusitce: Theoretical Notes from an Actual Jury Deliberation," jurors struggled to understand the role of the jury. Going into a jury deliberation jurors are given instructions by the judge. But as shown in Maynard and Manzo's research, morality may push participants to go beyond this, for justice must be served. Should, as Colbert puts it, "truthiness" or one's gut feeling and moral compass be relevant to determining a verdict? Or is discretion only on the judge's agenda?
In season six of Rumpole of the Bailey in the episode "a la Carte," the attorney bickers with the judge and lectures to the jury: "You are not concerned with the law, members of the jury, you are concerned with justice."
In "Against Deliberation," Lynn Sanders, a political scientist defines deliberation as, "...commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements, and overcome conflicts by offering arguments supported by reasons to our fellow citizens." It is nearly impossible to accomplish the prior without at least consulting right and wrong. Jurors must find the balance of incorporating the law and the specifics at hand.
In 12 Angry Men, the foreign juror mentions the responsibility of a citizen of a democracy to embrace this strength and leave personal interests aside. Yes! Jurors must be careful not to let discrimination, previous record and imagination determine a verdict, but only evidence determined fact, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Portrayed beautifully in the film, twelve jurors struggled with the concept. At first, 11 to 1 the men are convinced a Latino boy murdered his father. One man, a visibly upper-class architect, slowly convinces the jurors to vote innocent. The movie concludes with a unanimous not guilty.
To sum up, life and laws will never be simple, never solvable through formulas.
No comments:
Post a Comment