"It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent. But we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure."
--Juror #8 (12 Angry Men)
George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Although the Zimmerman case was at the state level, the right to trial by jury in federal criminal prosecutions is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Why would the framers insist on a written guarantee to jury trials in criminal court cases? Because the alternative to a jury trial is a trial in which the verdict is decided by a judge or tribunal. And the framers well knew that, because judges and tribunals are determined by political process, they are subject to making interested decisions.
A just court is one that is distinterested and focused only on the law and the facts of the case.
While it is certainly possible for a jury of peers to be interested as well, the jury selection process, the requirement that a jury verdict must be achieved by unanimous decision rather than by majority decision, and other controls reduce the likelihood that a defendant receives an unjust decision.
For a sampling of what an interested perspective looks like, observe those rioting in the streets calling Zimmerman a murderer despite a clear path of evidence suggesting otherwise that was presented during the trial. Parenthetically, a thoughtful discussion of the central issues in the case by someone who was both close to the case and who understands self-defense law is going on here (the first three parts are here, here, here.
The right to trial by jury is an important one, as it constitutes one impediment to tyranny.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The whole subject of civilians carrying guns for self defense is discussed too much in the wrong places -- ACLU cocktail parties, gun club gatherings -- all placid atmospheres far removed from the terrifying reality of violent confrontation with the lawless. It should be discussed in prisons, where professional criminals are remarkably candid about their avoidance of armed citizens who can fight back. It should be discussed in rape crises centers.
Ask a woman who has been raped, whether she ever wished she had a gun when it happened ... and whether she had bought one since. Her reply is likely to be “yes” to at least the first, and often to both. Talk to the bereaved who lost their loved ones to the streets. Talk to those who have been violated in their homes. Ask them how they feel about passive non-resistance.
And when you have attuned yourself to the haunting fear that lives with them forever after their nightmare, you will be ready to talk with someone else who was in their place, but survived unscathed because they were armed. The contrast will be striking. These survivors don’t put notches on their pistols, and they don’t brag about what they had to do.
The taking of a human life, no matter what the circumstances, is an unnatural act, an emotionally shattering experience that leaves its own scars forever. But none of those people regret what they did, and to a man, their first reaction was to go home to their wife and children and hug them, tightly and wordlessly.
~Massad Ayoob
I think that any "riots" have been few and far between. There have been peaceful demonstrations across the nation, not calling for Zimmerman to be murdered.
Yes, jury trial is the standard, but that doesn't mean it should be exempt from criticism in this case. That juror who has spoken out, for example, said that the testimony of Police Chief Chris Serino was influential to her - he testified that Zimmerman was credible. The problem is that the judge told the jury to disregard that statement.
It's a flawed system just by nature of being human. I think we are well within our rights to name that and to have a discussion about if and how to make the system better going forward.
Post a Comment