I received a jury duty summons last month, and I called in to the juror hotline and made it past three days without having to report to the court. Then on Thursday, I had to go in. Bummer.
When jury selection came around, the judge and lawyers explained the case and asked questions, basically trying to gauge whether or not a prospective juror would be able to use ample reason to separate the defendant and the crime in question from their own personal life. They had to determine whether or not the juror would be able to take today’s facts and see it as today and not as a venue for unresolved anger over a car break in, or to see cops as more than just people with another subjective account of what happened.
Prosecutor: “So do you have any personal experiences with a car break in or vandalism?”
Juror: “Yes, my car window was smashed two weeks ago, and I filed a police report, but they never found the person who did it. My son’s backpack was stolen.”
Prosecutor: “Do you think it’s just a cost of living in San Francisco, or is it something that we don’t have to stand and accept?”
Juror: “Well, I guess it happens all the time. I don’t think I was targeted necessarily. But it did happen twice in the same neighborhood.”
Judge: “Do you think that the defendant, who is sitting here, is the one who did it?”
Juror: “Well…..no.”
Judge: “Do you feel you can separate this case with what happened to you?”
Juror: “Um, yeah.”
Eventually a lot of people were dismissed either by the prosecutor or the defense attorney (it was really obvious who was ok with being there and who was answering questions in an attempt to be excused from jury duty). When it was my turn to sit in seat #15 for selection, I answered the questions honestly and told them why making an important decision that will affect the defendant’s life as a part of the jury goes against my personal religious beliefs. I was the first person to be rejected by both councils. It never felt so good to be rejected.
Despite what it seems like, a lawsuit or going to court does not determine who was right or wrong or whether or not something happened. The verdict only determines whether the jury believes that the facts presented to them in the courtroom are sufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the legal charges against him.
So many parts of that process show that the law is not absolute, clear cut, or black and white. The jury. The facts. What is presented in the courtroom each day. Sufficient. Reasonable doubt. Guilty. All these things are subjective.
There is no objectivity or universal notion of right or wrong. To be true justice, anyone off of the street should be able to apply reasonable standards to the case and arrive at the same decision, right? The verdict would be one that is obvious to all people, absolutely incapable of being argued down. But in selecting a jury, the attorneys are just selecting people who share their particular standards or beliefs. People who are likely to vote as they vote. And if selecting a jury can be a skill, like in the movie Devil’s Advocate, than the law is just another game. How is that justice? It’s just like selecting a team for dodgeball or basketball. Each team captain can pick 6 people who may help decide the case in their favor. And these team members have no idea about the law.
And what is the law, if not a set of beliefs held by a majority of people in power at a particular point in time relative to a particular location. At one point, the marriage of brothers and sisters wasn’t illegal, marijuana was strictly illegal, slaves were legal, gay marriage was illegal. But now, all that has changed. When a new president comes into office, laws are changed overnight. Changes in society necessitate amendments. Decisions by the supreme court set precedent and change the law. A lawyer can twist a common notion, create a precedent in a particular case, and change the law for countless others because attorneys rely on rulings from past cases to make their present case.
Who do we go to in order to determine if same-sex marriage is legal? The law depends on votes. Who votes? Only a portion of the population. Our laws change when people change. People change all the time, so what is truly legal? I was listening to the news, about legalized same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa. In these states, the population is more liberal, not so much devout church-goers, and younger people come out to vote. As a result, same-sex marriage was legalized. So is the marriage of a same-sex couple not considered real when they cross state-lines, and then acknowledged again once they re-enter their home state?
I think it boils down to the connotation of the term “legal.” It seems like legal = right. But legal is just right according to the law, which is subjective and always changing. The foundation of “legal” is change. What is legal today can be illegal tomorrow. I guess jury duty wasn’t such a big waste of time, after all.
No Comments