On the Jury! (Part 2)

If you haven't read part 1 I'd suggest checking it out first, since here I'm just going to offer a couple of thoughts on the experience.

1. Here's the wild thing about serving on the jury. You are, in the public sphere, inarguably important. It's not just that you feel important - that's inconsequential, really. You ARE important, not only to the basic functioning of the judicial system but to determining the enduring circumstances that at least one individual will find him/herself in.

Think about it. "I, along with five others, was charged with deciding the fate of a defendant in a criminal trial. Our opinion would be the final say on the matter. My dissent alone would be enough to prevent a decision that I disagreed with."

They took every opportunity to tell us jurors just how important and proud we should feel...in the same sort of language a company happy for our business or the government happy for our vote would use. The same kind of attributes that I've heard ascribed to doers and activists and exceptional students in schools and professional athletes etc. etc. - the kind of talk that in our time (perhaps other times, too?) has no meaning or substance beyond the feeling it gives the complimented.

It is easy to be jaded. I go to the store, buy something, they say "You're our number one customer!" Well, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. Who can tell? By the same token, if they say "You're a loser. We don't need your business." - well, maybe they don't. Maybe my purchase is a drop in the bucket. I go to jury duty, they say "You're important...." Same thing, right?

But sitting in that jury box I could not help but grasp that the reality of my involvement in the proceedings transcended anything anyone could say. There's the judge. There's the two lawyers. And then there's me, and if the defendant hears 'not guilty' it will be because I feel that this should be so.

Where else in the public sphere can a "regular" citizen's opinion and reasoning carry such weight?

If this was a two-way thing (i.e. people read this blog) I'd say "hey, anyone got an idea?" But since it's not, I think that's enough licking of jury duty's boots. (and the metaphor...yeah)

2. Crime happened in March. So. lawyers' fees between March and June: thousands of dollars. An entire day's work for one judge: thousands of dollars. The staff required to track down and brief jurors: thousands of dollars. Missed work by jurors: thousands of dollars.

One bracelet: pri...oh, wait, no. $80.

An unbalanced equation?

3. They get trials and lawyers better on screen than, say, doctors and hospitals. Twelve Angry Men? Fantastic movie. The jury dynamics are remarkably believable (even if some other aspects are not).

One guy on my jury would have fit right in: "See how she looks at the camera? Aw, she's guilty, you know it!"