Juries are under scrutiny as happens whenever a high-profile case is in the news. Does the system resemble what the Founders intended as they prescribed in the Sixth Amendment, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” or has the system turned upside down?
Jurists, of course, are different from jurors, but even some venerable graduates of law schools who sit on elevated courts have drifted from interpreting the law to imposing their ‘very partial’ feelings on the country. Is it any wonder that a group of laymen—sorry, laypeople— should do the same? Does Lindsay Clancy’s verdict rest on emotion or on evidence? This is not the first case to raise that question.
Rather than delve into this particular case, I’d like to share two of my own stories of jury duty. The first was when I was just out of college, The trial was for a kidnapping and murder. Although I had an above average civics education, the experience was eye-opening. We sat through a trial where the defense attorney—I assume taxpayer funded rather than privately chosen—made a shoddy and almost laughable case for his client. Even so, the jury took deliberations seriously with occasional requests to review the transcript of the trial. In the end, there was no plausible argument against the guilty verdict rendered. After the trial, one of the guards told us that this was only one of the charges against the plaintiff and his actions were worse than we knew.
At no time was anything other than facts of the case debated. Did the murderer have a difficult childhood? Was America at fault because of structural racism? Had anyone asked that question, none of us would have known what that meant. Asking if toxic masculinity was to blame would likewise have produced blank faces. We sat through a trial, heard the prosecutor and defense make their cases based on details of what happened, and drew a conclusion as to the accuracy of their claims. In many trials taking place today, the facts seem to be the least important variable.
Much more recently, I was in another jury pool. A few dozen of us were brought to a room where the accused was present. She was asked to stand so we could all see her. To say that she presented a scary, intimidating, and threatening image would be an understatement. We potential jurors were asked to raise our hands if we thought that her appearance would make it impossible for us to be fair in our judgment. Not one of us raised a hand. I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t the only one who was being less than truthful. Discomfort at being mentally accused of racism, prejudice, or being a race traitor by our fellow citizens if we admitted to being affected by her looks kept quite a few (if not most) of us quiet. While I was eventually excused for an unrelated reason, the experience was unsettling.
In pre-Revolutionary years, while tempers flared and emotions ran high, John Adams successfully defended the British soldiers involved in what became known as the Boston Massacre. While the future president was, and continued to be, a staunch patriot, anger and pain at the death of five colonists were no reason to make a pretense of a trial. Despite being vilified for defending the British, he famously said, “facts are stubborn things.”
Even stubborn things can eventually be destroyed or worn away. Today, the speed with which you disseminate an accusation matters more than the substance of the accusation. Evidence based on facts too frequently is relegated to the past alongside snuff boxes and rotary phones.
Surely, the Founders, basing their views on the phrase “judgement of one’s peers” from the Magna Carta, did not mean that if you were an amoral sociopath, the jury judging you should be composed of like individuals. Thieves, murderers, and con men did not expect those hearing their cases to be standing trial for similar crimes. A jury of your peers does not mean that they share your failings.
A system that prioritizes jurors depending on how strongly they identify with the plaintiff resembles Alice in Wonderland rather than the idealized vision of thoughtful, intelligent, and moral individuals who would populate a judicial system worthy of a great country. Societies rising and then falling are, unfortunately, another of life’s “stubborn things.”
Appreciated this article? Feel free to share it using this link: https://rabbidaniellapin.com/a-jury-of-your-peers/
What Are You Selling Today?
You may not be selling a product. Maybe you’re presenting an idea, recommending a solution, leading others, or simply trying to get someone to see things differently.
That’s selling, too.
In Sell – Influence – Persuade, Rabbi Daniel Lapin shares practical, Biblical principles to help you communicate more effectively, build trust, and inspire action.
P.S. If you already own the video course, Persuade with Purpose, this new course has been added to your library at no additional charge.
This was interesting. Should the sentence be something the judge decides then? That’s where some leniency could be given if appropriate.
Very good insight!