Having sat on a jury, I can say that your impressions are not in line 
with my experience.

In the deliberations I participated in, emotion was checked at the door 
(it was a drug case), and the jury was provided with a large packet of 
information about the laws pertaining to the case provided by both sides 
of the case.

The process of voir dire was quite interesting as well - the process is 
designed to eliminate those who may get emotional about the case (as was 
the case in a federal case my wife was called to serve for - the case was 
very close to a situation her ex-husband's family had been through, and 
it was quite traumatic - she was excused as a result after a one-on-one 
discussion with the judge).

The drug case I participated in was very interesting from several points 
of view.  There was information in the packet that indicated that the 
defendant may not be guilty of one of the charges he was accused of.  The 
initial vote in the jury room was unanimous on one count, and all but one 
(I was the one) voted in favor of a conviction on the second count.  This 
led to discussion, as it should, but not coercive discussion.  I 
explained my point of view based on the materials, and the others 
explained their point of view also based on the materials we'd been 
provided.  In the end, I agreed with them, but I went and talked to the 
judge after the case was over about it, and he explained a little more of 
the process (that the jury doesn't see) and how those materials are put 
together.

The packet that's put together is assembled by both the prosecution and 
the defense, and includes anything either side feels helps their case - 
case histories, cited law, etc.  The jury can ask any question they want 
about the materials they have or about the law - and most juries do spend 
a fair bit of time understanding the intent behind the law they are 
applying against the facts they've been presented.

The idea in the US court system (not sure about other countries, but I 
suspect it's similar) is that the jury decides the facts of the case - 
they judge the character of the witnesses called.  They then use those 
determined facts to identify what it is that the defendant is guilty of 
(if anything).

Is it perfect in all cases?  Absolutely not.  But at the same time, 
putting the power solely in the hands of the government is a supremely 
bad idea.

All in all, I'd have to say it's a good system, certainly the best system 
we have.  I've had the opportunity to talk to judges, lawyers, cops, and 
convicted felons about the system and the ones I've spoken to all have 
said that they think it's a good system.  Yes, even the felon said that, 
and he's been convicted twice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message