November 24, 2006
A Jury of Your Peers
By Stan Dyer
A certain, infamous, former, professional football player is in the news again, and my email switchboard is lighting up. Yes, I remember that entire murder trial, and I refuse to even mention the name, let alone discuss the case any further. There are still plenty of websites devoted to the subject, and, if you can't find one, I'll point out the way. I, however, want to take this opportunity to point out some facts about our American legal system. For most of us, it is better to manage our own fate than to place it in the hands of a jury of our peers.
Despite what many seem to believe, there is none among us with the divine ability to see the absolute truth or to be completely certain about everything, least of all matters of litigation. It is important to point out that judges, juries, lawyers and courts do not decide guilt or innocence. They weight the facts, toss around ideas and arguments, and then they use our system to "adjudicate" or "assign" a verdict. That verdict represents only their collective decision about what is the truth and not the actual truth itself.
Sure, in this system, many guilty people go free. Unfortunately, far too many innocent people face conviction, years behind bars, and execution. The system is not and never will be perfect. When we trust our personal cases and our individual futures to the decisions of others, we need to keep in mind that the people deciding are human too. No matter how educated they are, no matter their positions in life, and no matter how much we trust in honesty and the truth, human nature nearly always prevails. Humankind is prone to error.
When we go to court, our juries, our judges, and our courts will examine our pasts in relationship to our cases. Our pasts will affect the outcome of our cases and our futures. Additionally, aspects that shouldn't matter will matter. I'm talking about race, religion, creed, age, sex, attitude, appearance, and general sentiment. Our courts today resemble more something out of Lewis Carroll's "Looking Glass" than the product of a modern Republic. Yet, that's the best we have, and it's still better than vigilante justice, witch trials, or an Inquisition. Just remember that who you are now and how you behave in your life may affect your freedom. Just try not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In this culture of computers, artificial intelligence (both digital and carbon-based), and advanced methods of scientific testing, the only people who really know the truth are the victims, the perpetrators, and their supreme beings. Eyewitness testimony is fallible, and why magicians are so popular. DNA testing offers a great improvement, but it, too, is subject to human error in a number of ways. Finally, most people just don't like to be bothered with other people's affairs. That includes judges, juries and lawyers. They are there for the money and because they have to be, not because they have some special interest in anyone else. Many times, the people involved will just use any testimony and any evidence to support what they believe from the start.
I'm neither defending anyone here, nor proclaiming absolute guilt. I am just presenting the facts for your consideration. I am presenting my case, and asking you to be the judge. It is simply an obvious statement about human nature and its innate effect on any system including the judicial system. In this system, it is far better to keep one's nose clean, than to test fate in a court of law. If you need more convincing, look around you. I present for your consideration, your peers. They will comprise your jury, and you don't get to pick.