But my partner the feminist d'une certain rage is more cynical. She points out that the very last thing that either the prosecution or the defence wants in a juror is any semblance of intelligence – quite the opposite, she posits, they each want the dumbest people they can get, to increase their respective chances of swaying them.
So there's the real verdict on trial by jury – your democratic right is to be judged by the twelve least-intelligent people they can select.
"Yes Judge, we, the jury
find the defendant to be
guilty. Or innocent. Or um,
whatever it was that the
slower-talkin' lawyer said."
7 COMMENT/S:
Interesting. In the US, the prosecution opens with a final argument, then the defense has its turn, but the prosecution has the right to close, thereby explaining away any little quirks in the evidence that the defense brought up.
I always though jury service was one of the prices of freedom, a way to give back, and would have served. The only times I was summoned were during my husband's final illness, and I could not leave him. Now, ready and willing, I'm told I live outside the jurisdiction of the state court.
Oops, an explanation about Gully's comment for those of you who came in late:
The original post made reference to the Defence summing-up last, and I was probably wrong about that, so I've changed it a little.
Re the jury service, Gully – I don't think I could take on the responsibility of judging someone else. I've never been summoned for it, but I think I'd probably have to refuse to serve. Which, I guess, could get nasty for me, but...
Re "...judging someone else..." Someone has to stand up for and speak for the victim, no? Should only one person do this? No. That's why there are twelve people who hear the evidence and all twelve must agree on a guilty verdict. And yes, innocent people do get convicted, but so far no one's proposed a better system of making sure criminals pay for their crimes.
PS: I spent five years working around the court system. I found it fascinating to watch the changes in prospective jurors, from their initial voir dire through post-verdict. Most found the experience a serious jolt of the responsibility of citizenship.
They probably wouldn't let you take a book into court but if you wore a shirt with a sufficiently large breast pocket and it contained any book (even a Jackie Collins) that might get you off. To shorten the odds, translucent material for the pocket and a copy of The Trial - they'd throw you out.
If you want Kafka, BB, read this:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/04/hbc-90008045
Post a Comment