fandomhigh | Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #10, Mar 16]

"The human element," Alex said, her voice more flat than its usual. "That's today's topic. We've been dealing with the gray areas in this class, and as a result, I've been championing the human element. We don't mindlessly apply the law: we have a jury of twelve average citizens determine the accused's fate. Sounds good, right? A great way of making sure the law isn't cold and analytical. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The human element also introduces human flaws.

"Jury nullification is what happens when a jury chooses a verdict that doesn't agree with the rule of law. A man is arrested for possession of marijuana, which he obtained as pain-relief for his cancer-stricken wife. The man admits to doing it, but says his wife mattered more to him than the law. The jury finds him not guilty, because they believe the law should not be enforced in this case. If enough juries don't convict under a particular law, that can help sway the lawmakers to repeal it. That's the good side of it."

She took a deep breath before continuing, a grim expression on her face. "The bad side is when people's own prejudices get the better of them. For example, a police officer is accused of brutality against a suspect, and is placed on trial. The police officer is acquitted. If the officer and jury all belong to a majority group, and the suspect an oppressed minority, it's possible that the jury looked the other way. There are instances of punishments being diminished in cases where the victim might have been acting in a way that the jury wishes to disapprove of. That woman is promiscuous, and she was dressed provocatively; this somehow should be applied to the considerations if the woman is forcibly raped."

It was rare that Alex lost faith in the justice system: when she did, it bothered her in ways she couldn't put words to.

"The effect is amplified if the victim is the member of a group that the average citizen does not, to put it bluntly, care about. A prostitute is gang-raped, a drug addict is beaten, a homeless man is killed. Those people are other, so convicting their assailants is less important than it would be if the rape victim was a fresh-faced college girl, or the murdered man was a local businessman."

"The human element means that you get all of it -- the prejudice, the blind spots, the ability to blame the victim for a crime. There's really no good work-around, unless you'd rather have the sterility of mandatory punishments for offenses. I welcome other suggestions."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If a jury fails to convict but acknowledges the defendant broke the law, should the government be allowed to try its case again? How do we keep the rule of jury from being a referendum on how society feels about certain groups -- ones who are theoretically under the same protection legally as everyone else? If a jury fails to convict because the populace believes a law is unfair, should that convince the lawmakers to remove the law? Does your answer change if the law in question protects members of a specific group?

"I don't think the government should be allowed a second trial," Jack began. "That would allow them to punish someone by keeping them in a loop of trials forever, until the government's luck changed."

"But if juries refuse to convict because a law is unfair -- like in your marijuana example -- I think the lawmakers should look at that law. Though I wouldn't say that's true if it's a law protecting minority groups. The state should hold itself to a higher standard than civilians, there."

"Protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority?" Alex asked, with a hint of a smile. "Sometimes what's just and fair and what's popular are at complete loggerheads. Having said that, there is a beneficial outcome to juries regularly refusing to convict under certain laws. Even without the lawmakers taking the ruling off the books, it means prosecutors are less likely to take those particular legal issues to court. It's expensive and time-consuming, especially if you know there's a high chance of mistrial or acquittal. It only takes one sympathetic member to hang the jury."

Practicality sometimes led to justice. Who knew?

Edited 2010-03-16 20:40 (UTC)

"This is one of those things where it really depends on the situation," Sam said, looking uncomfortable as he tried to put his thoughts into words. "I want to say that yes, the government should be able to try a case again if someone is getting away with a crime and they shouldn't, but who's to say a corrupt government wouldn't abuse that privilege? The only thing I'm really sure about is that yes, if a jury fails to convict enough times because a law is unfair, then the law should be examined and possibly taken off the books."

"That's why the law is set up the way it is," Alex agreed. "Giving more weight to the people. Because the threat of a corrupt government is always the more dangerous option. You need twelve people to agree on a verdict in a criminal case, so in most situations, you're more likely to have prejudice cause a hung jury and a mistrial than an acquittal. You hope that, out of twelve people, at least one has a working conscience."

Which hadn't worked so well, in the deep South for a number of years, but sometimes justice took its time.

"Isn't that where civil cases come into play?" Gunn asked, for once looking serious.

"It can be," Alex said, nodding her agreement. "Someone's acquitted, so you file civil charges. Civil court can only impose financial penalties, not send someone to jail, but the standards of evidence are lower and you don't need all the jury members to agree. It's something. Do you have experience with civil court?"

"Nah," Gunn chuckled ruefully. "I'm just remembering OJ's trials, man. There's no way a guy like me could sue anyone for anything."

"What if... Can the jury change the charges?" Kurt asked. "Like, instead of guilty or not guilty, find the defendant SORT OF guilty, and give them less jail time?"

"If there are lesser charges included," Alex said. "If you charge the suspect with murder and manslaughter, then the jury can find the defendant guilty of manslaughter but not murder. Sometimes, prosecutors won't include charges like that, because it implies we'll settle for the latter, even if the evidence doesn't point to it."

"But if you don't include it, the jury doesn't have the option? That's... not an easy tradeoff."

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #10, Mar 16]

Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10

Re: Discussion - Travesties of Justice - JST10