Feigning Objectivity

I must say that while I was saddened by watching the two attorneys at work last week, I appreciated the presiding judge. He was strict and direct, and didn't let anyone get away with much.

In the natural course of such matters, he asked if we had any reason that would prevent us from serving objectively, etc. Being Juror Number One, I mentioned that I had lost my aunt and a friend to drunk drivers. He looked at me straight in the eyes and asked, "Do you think you cannot think logically, and separate your personal loss from the facts that will be presented to you?" Of course I can think logically, and I told him so--and I added that I would try to be as objective as possible and not think of the people I loved and lost. "That's all I ask."

I must say, I don't strictly believe in objectivity. I think objectivity is nearly impossible to reach. We are the sum total of our beliefs, experiences and knowledge. We do not and cannot leave that knowledge behind when we encounter situations where we have to decide and take action. Perhaps relative objectivity is the best we can do with our limited capabilities. Which is why I think the idea of twelve people being trusted to be objective in deciding the guilt or innocence of someone is a pretty tall order.

Which brings me back to my thoughts on the whole justice system. It seems from my past experiences being eliminated from juries, as well as this occasion, all parties involved try to select people who know as little about anything as possible--similar unfortunately to how many people vote. This is how we end up with innocent people on death row, or even worse perhaps, languishing for years in jail and how guilty people walk free and write books about the crimes they have committed. If I were presented with truly technical information about certain things, there is no way I would be able to understand it; especially because jurors are forbidden to research the 'facts' that are presented to them. Which means the two sides must resort to bringing their 'experts' to educate twelve people in a short period of time. How objective can paid experts be? And how do those jurists separate conflicting expertise and make a decision that impacts the lives to so many people?

Again, I don't have an answer; nor do I think any other system is especially more just or fair than our current system. I just think our myth of justice is so strong, we have stopped thinking of ways to improve the models we have today.

Any thoughts from the philosophers in the peanut gallery?

Sleepy Justice: Finally Rests

We were a decisive bunch.

The trial officially started on Thursday, we heard witnesses, saw charts and went into deliberations today. It took us a grand total of an hour to all agree; and so justice was served.

The trial was for a DUI, being prosecuted and defended by three incredibly inexperienced lawyers. The defendant was obviously not well off financially, which is why he had court appointed public attorneys. In my mind, the facts that were presented would have convicted him regardless, but his attorneys' inexperience did him a disservice. When your defense attorney argues your innocence by saying the entire burden is on the prosecution, and she could just sleep through the trial--it should make you worry a little. I do not think defense attorneys get rich by promising to nap through trials.

This being my first time on a jury and seeing first hand how things worked, made me truly wonder about our justice system. Actually, I have been thinking about the system and how it works the entire time I wasn't either in the jury box or reading. I'm not too familiar with how justice is applied in other countries, and am willing to believe ours is one of the better systems out there--but I also think there is a great deal to be desired. I say this, not because of obvious failures like the OJ Simposons of the world, but because of the many nameless and faceless cases that come and go through our justice system, but never get justice.

I'll have to continue this and a bunch of other thoughts later this weekend--after I address Laundry Mountain, Cooking 101 and possibly boogie boarding (yay!). But for now, I'm glad I put aside my personal feelings and memories for long enough to make a decision that I'm pretty comfortable with--despite the impact it had on a man's life.

Sleepy Justice: Duty Calls

I have been called to do my civic duty and serve on a jury. This is my third time being called to serve, but I have never been selected to actually sit on a jury. Each time, I have had to wake up at ungodly hours, drive in circles in whichever downtown I happen to be in--desperate for parking, sat around all day avoiding eye contact with people, and finally been thanked for my time. It seems defense attorneys don't look kindly on jurists who work in news rooms or express strong feelings about alleged 'domestic abusers'.

Of course, I may be called to sit on a jury for a trial of political significance. I will feel very special if I give a lot of thought to the evidence presented, and find out that my decision has been brushed aside by a politician who considers my opinion too 'harsh'.