Joseph - Week 5: The Palladium of Justice
No matter if you are a former president like Obama or you are Joe Schmo, jury duty is a privilege and duty that is unavoidable for every American. Some people consider it as the Palladium of Justice, meaning that it is the most important foundation in the American Justice System, but is it actually that respected?
Spoilers, it is not the perfect system that people considered.
Some context for trials is that any trial that has a maximum sentence of less than 6 months would not be eligible for a jury trial. Furthermore, in the federal court, only 22% of the court cases are jury trials. This represented that most cases in the federal courts were tried without a jury.
The jury system itself is not perfect. It consists of 2 parts. A Grand jury which examines the evidence and decides if charges would be filed and the petit jury which is the ones that actually make a judgment.
The grand jury is a one sided process. Only the prosecutors are allowed to attend the process which means that the grand jury could be easily swayed by the prosecutors into filing charges. This resulted in over 99% indictment rate for the federal Courts from the grand Jury.
Would the petit jury be better than the grand jury?
No, it is actually more flawed than the grand jury, because people are often biased and flawed. Before the Batson v. Kentucky ruling, prosecutors would often use peremptory challenges for any case with an African American defendant. These challenges are automatic and do not require any reasoning. The prosecutors often remove African American jurors to increase their chances of conviction on African American defendants. The loophole was filled by the Batson v. Kentucky which banned removal based on Race and Gender.
However, the peremptory challenges sparked a whole other industry called jury consulting. Jury consultants are people who conduct a full background check on the jurors and analyze the actions of the jurors to assume what their opinions on the trials would be. They would then modify their defense to suit the opinion/biases of the jurors. They could also use the peremptory challenges mentioned above to remove any high risk defendants that they determine would not decide in their favor. An example of this is the Rodney King trials. The defense hired a well known jury consultant to find a very pro police jury out of the potential jury pool. The consultant described the jury as a “gem”. Jury consultants are legal, but it violates the principle of “equal justice under law” for America; it creates an advantage for wealthy Americans to have a higher chance of winning a trial with a jury compared to an ordinary person because they can spend money on modifying their defense using the jury.
It’s fascinating how a system that is so well respected still contains flaws, but America is not perfect, and we have the duty to pave a smoother way for our future generations.
What’s up, Joseph? Honestly, I respect your take on the subject, and I for one definitely acknowledge the innate flaws of regular people serving on jury duty. However, it is my contention that in reality it is the underlying issues surrounding the justice system we have rather than the presence of regular people making decisions that give juries a bad impression in the eyes of people like you (and your opinions are completely valid, I can perfectly see why you hold it and it makes perfect sense that someone would reach that conclusion). In truth, as you bring up, the juries are influenced by outsiders paid to influence them a certain way or get certain people only to be on the jury, and the contrived legal system we have at present really only makes the issue of an inherently biased jury worse through the selection not being randomized. Due to this, I feel that it is not the presence of a jury of common people that is the problem, but the various ways juries are inherently made to be biased that cause the completely true issues you bring up. The fact that there are a lack of juries in trials period means there’s not much actual data to pull from, as well. Take this as my researched opinion and not a factual rebuttal, as I am genuinely intrigued by your opinion. Have a good evening, Joseph.
ReplyDeleteHi Joseph! I like how you pointed out this problem with our current justice system. What were our founding fathers thinking? They should have predicted this and made a fairer system! Jokes aside, I never thought there would be an issue with the jury in our courts. I heard that juries are picked specifically and carefully just to make sure that there isn’t any foul play happening. I like listening to true crime podcasts and I’m always hearing about how the jury doesn’t get to hear any news about the case outside of the courtroom so they won’t be swayed in a certain way by the media.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is completely unfair that some people have more access to resources, and so they are able to hire a jury consultant who may be able to do research to help persuade juries. I think that should definitely not be allowed. I also think that rich people in general have an advantage because of their power and influence, and that is not fair. We definitely have the power to pave a smoother future for future generations, so I hope we can actually do that. Though I think instead of prison sentences we should focus on reform and support like Sweden or something.