The justice system is interesting. I spent the last 2 days in jury duty, where I was actually taken into the final stages of jury selection before they didn't choose me.
Well, if there's one thing being terrorized by my 2 coach-attorneys (who I do love dearly) is good for, it's making me think. I suppose it wouldn't have worked to answer the question of "is there any reason that you would be unable to serve inpartially as a juror" with "because I'm regularly traumatized by arguing with two lawyers and losing, not because I'm necessarily wrong, but because they're better at arguing than I am. So I have an innate sympathy for the lesser eloquent and more frequently bullied side."
Haha, perhaps they'd let me off on insanity.
I think that being a juror is indeed a civic duty (however inconvenient it may be). However, as a candidate for deciding a criminal case, I really wondered at my ability to be absolutely impartial and make a decision by the court's rules alone. I had reservations with that, which I voiced, and apparently ultimately confused everyone, including the judge. It's not like I did it on purpose to be taken off, but I really wanted clarification on the system.
As a juror, or as anyone in the justice system, I would hope that the purpose would be to determine right from wrong. That my participation in the justice system would be productive towards releasing the innocent and convicting the guilty. However, I didn't necessarily see this principle as one and the same as what they were pitching to me: that based on the evidence presented by the prosecution alone, as the burden of proof, to decide whether there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or there was not - by the methods of the court.
Ideally, it would not depend on the eloquence, competance, and savvy smooth talking of your attorney. But it does. And I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the possibility that just because one side has the more convincing, more aggressive lawyer who can box arguments together to corner you into making an argument seem true when it may or may not be - that I should choose their side. That doesn't necessarily mean to me that we've reached the truth.
So in the end, I had reservations, especially with the particulars of this case (details of which I'm not at liberty to disclose). I didn't think that I could judge a case - particularly where the defense would not testify and the burden lay solely on the prosecution - based on the evidence alone, without any logical inference or deduction, should the need arise. I'm not saying the prosecution were idiots. What do I know about their abilities? But there is a possibility that they just might be.
I suppose I can thank Sabs for this - but I absolutely do question or grapple with what anyone says or presents before me. I refuse to be cornered into arguments for argument's sake - and above all, I think that it comes down to right and wrong and determining THAT, rather than whether someone did a good enough job proving it or not. Ideally they would be the same thing - but what if it isn't?
Why is it so difficult to get to the truth? Why is it expected that someone will get on the witness stand, put their hand on the Bible, swear to tell the truth - and then lie? (Basically a point that one of the attorneys brought up - rather disappointing, but I suppose reality)
Do they want jurors that can be swayed? I think so. Each side looks for potential people who can be convinced (and by convinced it could mean tricked) into believing their arguments.
The judge made an analogy in answer to my questions. He said "this is not a civil case - it's not as if you're handling a dispute between two children who are quarreling and you hear both sides to determine whose fault it was." I was uncomfortable with the fact that I would not hear both sides, or get the complete story.
It felt to me that what was on trial was not the crime or the defendant himself - but the abilities of the prosecution. And I would hesitate to say that I would follow completely along without my own analysis running concurrently, to leave the judgement of right or wrong upon the skills or lack thereof of an attorney, which is basically what they were asking me to do.
Perhaps I'm just too cynical of the motives and intentions of attorneys, whose job it is to paint a picture, regardless of how accurate that picture is. I think it's because as I've been in NY and met quite a few in the law profession, it seems to me (as a sweeping generalization, mind you) that they are oftentimes focused on being 'right' than necessarily finding the truth. Makes sense, that is what the profession is. You win when you've proven your side is "right". Attorneys that actually believe in their clients and their cause 100% - that I can respect. But not everyone I meet is like that.
I'm guessing the judge didn't like me because after I talked, apparently seeds of doubt were planted in others in the jury box. (All of these people, including myself, were not ultimately selected). But I must say this - if these people could be swayed to doubt their own psychological state of impartiality and ability to judge based on the arguments of one fellow juror with no background in law whatsoever, then who knows how easily they might have been influenced by the actual people in the trial?
It's like when Daniel and Ryugo were fighting over the Pokemon Gameboy game, each saying it was his. I have the word of two 5-year-olds - clearly the game has to belong to one of them, and one of them only. One of them is either lying or honestly mistaken (should they both own the game). Wouldn't I want to hear both sides of the story and get as complete a story as possible before making a judgement? And if one of them refused to tell me his side, could I really put that aside and separate it in my mind, not question his motives for silence, and in the end, make a final decision based on whether the other boy had sufficiently proven it was or was not his? Is it fair to make Ryugo, whose second language is English, prove that it's his or else by default give it to Daniel? Is that the best way to make the right decision?
What if someone who is guilty is put through a trial and found not guilty? Would they understand that they have received grace, and act accordingly? Or would it spur them to toe the line further, seeing that the system was flawed to their benefit?
How do you know what is true, and how do you get to the truth?
I'm curious as to how the case will turn out (though I will never find out). But it was eye-opening as to the process of justice we try to set up, to control or discipline our own sinfulness, when that even plays a role as to how it turns out. Not that I know more than anyone else, because clearly I don't. But something about the last 2 days didn't quite sit well with me...can't exactly put my finger on it, perhaps it's bothering me for nothing.
Well, guess I'll find out in 4 years when I get my next summons.
No comments:
Post a Comment