Click Here to sign the Darfur Petition!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Jury Duty

I received a jury summons.
I had to attend court one monday and went into a room with about 60 or so other randomly selected citizens. After a brief spiel from a friendly staff member, names were called over a loudspeaker of people who had to go inside the court room to be part of a jury. They selected people for 2 trials, i think. I wasn't selected on the first monday but along with the rest of the people, had to go back the following Monday. This time my name was called up....

I was then on a jury for 2 days. The first day involved hearing witnesses and the defence and prosecutors present their case. The second day involved a summary by the judge and then deliberations by our jury. We went into the jury room from about 11am and finally reached our verdict by 4pm. It was a rather challenging experience in interpersonal communication and justice. I found it a challenge to be objective and not feeling sorry for the accused - i was consantly reminding myself that it's important to make a decision based on the evidence not on wanting the person not to go to prison. I feel my conscience is clear in that i was as fair as i could be. (In a way we all had to make our own decision and then discuss it, and not just follow what the other jury members decide).

The charges against the accused were for burglary, stealing and commission to commit a crime. Our decision didn't have to be unanimous but had to have a majority of 10. None of our verdicts were unanimous and at one point we had a 3-9 deadlock. Our jury reached a verdict of guilty for 2 of the charges and not guilty for another. After we announced our verdict we stepped down from the jury box but were allowed to stay, in the back of the court if we wanted to hear the sentencing. A few of us stayed and so we heard the accused's criminal history and that he received an 8 month prison sentence. I was quite suprised at the harshness of the sentence but I trust the judge because he seemed fair.

There's not much joy in helping someone to spend more time becoming more corrupt in prison, especially when they are younger than me and have been a victim of crime themselves as a child, as this person had been.

Some of the jury members were really annoying but most were impressively clear-headed and objective who really helped me by their clear thinking and communication.

It's sad to me that people can so easily label other people as criminals and bad people as if they themselves were "good" people. I was sickened about how easily we ignore our own hypocrisy, pride, hatred, arrogance, unforgiveness and selfiness and self-righteously condemn another persons crime. Some crimes are laid bare for all to see and others are hidden and brushed over.

"To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers- or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

7 Comments:

At 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure you "acquitted" yourself very well. ;)

I've always wanted to be on a jury, but maybe that was out of ignorance. But I don't think it's ever going to happen - as I understand it, members of the clergy are ineligible. Not just exempt, mind you, but ineligible.

But that might change soon. It might have been changed already. In fact, now that I hunt around for info:

3.96 The committee has given this category of ineligibility a great deal of consideration. It concludes that it is no longer necessary for ministers of religion to be singled out as a specific class of ineligibility or to have an automatic right to be excused from jury service. Ministers of religion will usually have knowledge, experience and gifts which would be very useful inside a jury room.

From Jury Service in Victoria, 1996.

Anyway, sorry about the long post, but I've always found jury service fascinating.

Oh, and how's this for re-telling of the story (from here):
Two men went up to the temple to pray. The first was a Pharisee, and the second a publican. And the publican stood up and prayed like this: O God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are: two-faced, holier-than-thou, proud, arrogant, self-righteous, or even as this Pharisee. And the Pharisee would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat upon his breast and said: Lord, have mercy on me, a hypocrite.

 
At 3:36 PM, Blogger Yvonne said...

thanks for your comment John - i love long ones! I think you would be good on a jury - your scientific mind and valuing of the truth, but also enough compassion to remember presumption of innocence, would be a perfect combination.

I like the retelling of the Jesus' story. It's a helpful version to reinforce the same point Jesus was making.

 
At 7:39 PM, Blogger BSJ-rom said...

Your comment on seeing how guilty we ourselves are must make it really difficult to be in that position of power - more so the judge in sentencing. I suppose, as a juror, you have to see whether somebody is guilty or not, whereas, a judge has to say just how guilty the person is. From a Christian point of view, I think that's a really scary thing.

 
At 8:50 AM, Blogger The Librarian said...

Great post yvonne, it sounds dumb but I would love to be called for jury duty....sad isn't it!!

Thanks for making it eye openeing for us, it makes me wonder if I erally want to be on a jury. Crime devastates everyone, not just the victims.

"It's sad to me that people can so easily label other people as criminals and bad people as if they themselves were "good" people"

Indeed, I just saw the film 'Walk the Line', Johnny Cash had a lot of compassion for criminakls.

There's a great line in the film, ( maybe you've seen it). Where his recording label don;t want him to record a live album at a prison.
'You'er fans are christians, they don;t approve of you cheering up criminlas'.

"Well, they ain't christian then'.


It's interesting John, that clergy are ineligible!!!!!!

I think its positive that they are re-thinking this though :)

 
At 9:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great observations Yvonne ... thank you. It must be very hard judging someone guilty or innocent. Almost as hard as working out whether a lemon with spots is diseased or not. I think Andrew needs a little help ...

 
At 11:53 AM, Blogger Jonny said...

I had to do jury duty a few years ago. I enjoyed it. I was lucky to get on a jury for a civil case that went for 3 weeks. (was paid some money for that time). I got to know the rest of the jury quite well, and we had morning tea and lunch together. We had our own tea room in the court and everything. We got to see funny video evidence, as the defence lawer had obviously hidden in the bushes to spy on the poor lady. In the end we gave her $500,000 I think it was. Sally Maree Tonks vs Forestry Tasmania

 
At 8:02 PM, Blogger kat said...

I've only just seen this post, so sorry for such a late response.

I appreciated hearing your experience on a jury - thanks for the enlightenment. I too have always wanted to go on jury duty, but have seen many people talk about how they would bypass their duty if they received a summons.

It sure would be hard to make a decision understanding how your choices affect other people's lives.

Perhaps it was, as well, a significant insight into the legal system.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats