One of the most important freedoms in the
American judicial system is the right to a jury trial. This allows a minimum of six Americans,
chosen from a list of registered voters, to determine a person's guilt or innocence
through deliberations. They have the
power to express the conscious of society as well as interpret and judge the
laws themselves. If they feel that a law
is unconstitutional, evil, or even unfair they can void it for the circumstance
by declaring the defendant not-guilty.
The power of the jury is enormous and through time has become more
equitable by decreasing the limitations to become a juror including race and
sex. Part of the reasoning behind the
right to a jury trial is to limit government power. Although judges should be fair and just,
total power is too strong, and could be used to aid some people while harming
others. As someone once said,
"Power corrupts
sometimes, but absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Many people thought anarchy would form through the use of a jury system, but no such thing has occurred. It has produced a feeling of involvement in
the judicial system and government itself.
Throughout this essay, a comparison of a real jury, a simulated jury,
and Hollywood's perception of a jury will be discussed. The television special,
Inside the Jury Room, showed a videotaping of a real life jury as seen in a
small criminal courtroom. The case was
Wisconsin v. Leroy Reed, a criminal trial for the possession of a firearm by an
ex-convict. The simulated jury concerned
an ex-military man who shot two police officers, killing one and seriously
injuring another. The police had broken
into his house because there was probable cause to believe he had drugs. The man shot the officers because he thought
they were robbing his house. The
Hollywood version, titled 12 Angry Men,
revolved around a teenage boy who was
accused of murdering his father and could possibly lose his life if found
guilty. The topics of jury selection and
appearance, the jurors understanding of their significance, and the
deliberation and verdict will be examined for the three juries.
The actual jury itself, has much bearing on how
a verdict will result. Are the members
compassionate? Rigid? Black? White?
Rich? or Poor? All of these factors can
influence a jury; this is why lawyers are so critical when making their
decisions. In the past, juries only
admitted white males, as in 12 Angry Men.
Discrimination against blacks has always existed; and until the
fifteenth amendment was passed, and the Grandfather Clause, White Primaries,
and literacy test were declared unconstitutional, they could not vote. Women, although the population's
majority, were the last to be given
suffrage rights. The men in the movie
seemed affluent and business-like. Some
of the men came from meager backgrounds, yet they all act as if they were
solvent. Also, the men were adorned with professional attire. In contrast, Inside the Jury Room chose a
group of jurors of mixed ethnic backgrounds and genders, in various occupational
settings. There were psychiatrists,
teachers, and business people with many different life experiences. Also, the dress was not at all formal. The differences among the jurors contributed
greatly to the insight and opinions shared about the case. A psychiatrist was
able to give her professional opinion on the man's condition, mental
retardation, while others could be more
objective. A well-rounded jury can, in
my opinion, produce a more educated and thought-out verdict. In the simulated jury, the jurors were
selected randomly and personal opinions and biases, were not considered. This affected the decision tremendously. The majority of Maymester students are reverse-transfer
students and tend to be, statistically, more conservative and tough than normal
community college students. Ergo, the
verdict was not fairly considered from a wide array of viewpoints.
To the lawyer and the defendant, jury selection is probably the most
important vehicle for attaining a verdict that is favorable to their position.
One major problem in having average citizens
making such important, even life threatening decisions, is that often jurors do
not understand how significant of a role they are playing in the process. During Inside the Jury Room, due to Leroy's
retardation, the jury felt that the case never should have come to trial. He did not understand what he was doing wrong
and he was of no danger to society. One
juror called it a waste of time and a "Mickey Mouse" case. Another juror would not even formulate an
opinion for the group. Rather, he said he did not care, but would go along with
the majority. Being a juror is an important role, and nonchalance
can cost an innocent man his freedom, or release a guilt man. After voting and
discussions, the jury finally realized their power, and decided they had a
purpose beyond the basic criteria and laws.
12 Angry Men, as well, displays a jury who originally did not comprehend
their significance and was ready to send a teenager to death without even a discussion. Baseball tickets and the overwhelming
heat concerned the jurors more than the
actual case. Some members played games
and told business stories rather than pay attention. It was not until key points expressing doubt
in the boy's guilt appeared that everyone realized their significance. Life experiences and stubbornness still
prevented many of the jurors from understanding the concept of "reasonable
doubt." In the jury simulation, the
jurors did not understand their importance due to their knowledge of the case
being imaginary. Hopefully, a verdict would be discussed and
deliberated more thoroughly in a realistic situation. Only one juror splintered from the majority
to promote a debate, and discuss the crime in relation to the punishment. The exasperated members seemed more focused on
concluding the class session, than on producing justice. Hence, until pointed out, juries seldom
realize their significance in the judicial system.
Throughout time, deliberations have stayed
predominantly similar. During Inside the
Jury Room, the judges told them to consider the questions: Did he know he was a
convict?; Did he know he bought a handgun?; and did he know he could not own a
handgun? If these were all true, then
Leroy Reed should be found guilty. The
judge did not tell them that they still had the power to produce a not guilty verdict. The members started by choosing a foreman and
continued by discussing each individual's opinions and views on the case. Immediately afterwards, the jury took a
secret ballot paper vote to retain some anonymity. They then followed a
continuous pattern of discussing their differences and taking votes until a
unanimous verdict was reached. They
concluded that the man did not have the ability to understand the law nor what
crime he committed, and thus, nullified the law for Leroy Reed. 12 Angry Men, followed the same procedures
except for the fact that they took hand votes predominantly in lieu of paper
ballot votes. One major problem among
this jury was the concept that he was guilty until proven innocent rather than
the reverse. They looked at the guilty
evidence as proof, and reasonable doubt was dismissed. This case did show an ideal picture of good
winning over evil; although realistically, no jury would have discovered points
such as the glasses and the stab wound.
Another negative aspect of the case is that members tried to pressure
others, until a common verdict was met. In
a positive light, when the last "guilty" man decided to acquiesce his
verdict, the other jurors wanted him to believe in his decision and not just go
along with the majority. A "not
guilty" verdict was eventually reached due to doubt, not necessarily
innocence. In the jury simulation, the
jurors took an initial vote for first and second degree murder. Then they produced a vote for voluntary
manslaughter. Next a discussion to
overcome the obstacles occurred until a unanimous verdict was reached. Our jury decided that the man was guilty of
voluntary manslaughter. Due to a split
initially between voluntary manslaughter and self-defense, a punishment of five
years, a minimum for the crime committed, was issued to the man. Deliberations are consistent and have not
changed significantly throughout the years.
What is justice? According to Noah Webster, "Justice is
the use of authority and power to uphold what is right, just, or
lawful."(1, 993) Justice was
served in all three cases because they were thoroughly deliberated and considered. When sufficient doubt was present, a "not
guilty" verdict was passed. Cases
were re-created bringing all point-of-views to light. The in-class simulation was more similar to
that of Inside the Jury Room due to the appearance, and unbiased opinions of
the members. The judicial system, is the
only part of government with little corruption; due strongly to the jury
procedure. Through the years, specifics
have changed in our juries, but the same basic concepts and procedures still
exist today. The right to a jury, is one
of America's greatest rights and will hopefully remain that way for years to
come.
No comments:
Post a Comment