Jury Duty (part 1)
One of the freedoms I think we Americans notice least is the right to have juries sit in judgments of our trials. Always, when we discus juries, its from the perspective of what a hassle it is to sit on a jury, how much we’d prefer not to be on one, strategies on how to get out of one. Nonetheless, I would contend that juries serve as an important check against tyranny.
Looking at the structure of a courtroom, the prosecutor is in the employ of, and is representing “the State” either literally (ie: “The people of the state of California”), or more technically (ie: “the people of the United States”). Next there is the judge, who is an employee of the government doing the prosecuting. As is, very often, the lawyer for the defendant. Most criminal cases have police officers as witnesses– people who’s job is to protect the interests of the State, and are empowered to use violence towards that end. Weighed against this is the ideal of presumption of innocence… And one other thing.
When a person is brought before a jury, the jury is asked to make a determination of fact. Did these acts happen? The jury is, ideally, to have no institutional stake in the outcome of the case, merely a desire to see justice done. We amateurs are ripped from our own lives and placed in judgment of one of our own, in hopes that in a case of over-reach by the State, we citizens will be able to head off a grave injustice.
I’ve got jury duty today. I’m looking forward to it.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment