Ostomy Memories of Juries

IF SOMEONE WERE to suggest today a new system of criminal justice – a jury trial system – I should think the idea a trifle absurd. Criminal charges and the trials thereon are, after all, serious matters, and deserve serious consideration by truly impartial judges of the facts. A jury of his peers, you say?
The proposal, as I imagine it, would be to go out into the community at large and hornswoggle a bunch of unwitting citizens to kill a day or two down at the courthouse listening to testimony from a bunch of purported witnesses sworn to tell the truth. These jurors too would be sworn to truly try the matter at hand without prejudice, preconceived notion, or outside influence. Are they serious?
Naturally, lawyers would be present to represent each side of the controversy, which always tends to muddle up the works appreciably. I believe the old saws about “blowing smoke” and “pulling the wool over their eyes” and such must have originated in courts of law. If there is a difference between lying and stretching the truth, it would likely require the keen-eyed vision of the national bird to spot the point where one leaves off and the other commences.
Besides, what’s a “peer” anyway? Down at congress, politicians are peers, but they get along much like cats and dogs and can’t agree on the time of day, let alone weighty matters such as may end up in a court of law.
The jury system proposed imagines that the judge, after the evidence is in, would then instruct the jurors on what law to apply to the facts. The fallacy here is that, one, the jurors would understand the law, and two, that they would in fact follow it. Why, I’ve talked to lawyers, and even a judge or two, who didn’t understand the damned law, and neither did the fools down at the legislature who created it in the first place.
No, I’d rather stick with our present system of justice and forget about using a bunch of idiot jurors who can’t make up their minds about their own lives, let alone someone else’s. The current system of flipping a coin works out just fine, from my observation. At least we can usually make heads and tails of heads and tails.

Hello HenryM.

Your post indicates that you have first-hand knowledge of courts and their procedures. Mathematicians might argue that tossing a coin would probably give the right result in half the cases, which is possibly better than the present system, but who knows?
I recall in my early days of attending court, I was railing about something or other which was obviously troubling me as being ‘unfair’. One of my colleagues quietly took me to one side and explained that my ‘trouble’ was that I was looking for ‘justice’. He went on to exclaim that if this was the case, then I was in the wrong place!
That little gem of wisdom has stayed with me for many years and is probably still true of today’s system. Those were the days when I was still trying to make ‘sense’ of things that were happening around me and I wrote many rhymes to capture the seemingly nonsensical and absurd behaviour of my fellow human beings.

I will share two short rhymes to give the flavour of my thinking at that time.
The first (A rarefied atmosphere’) is my favourite rhyme, which has touched an empathetic nerve with many of my fellow observers of humans and their systems.
The second, (How can I put it?’) is one of those recurring themes, which spin through my mind when people are deliberately being deceitful and/or trying to ‘put one over’ on someone else (an unfortunately common occurrence in the courtroom setting but the concept is often reflected in the wider society).

Best wishes
Bill

A RAREFIED ATMOSPHERE.

IF THE ATMOSPHERE STINKS
WHEN SOMETHING’S GONE WRONG.
BLAME THOSE WHO SHIT
NOT THOSE SHAT UPON .

                                    B. WITHERS 1984
                                   (in ‘Catharsis’1992)

HOW CAN I PUT IT?

Perhaps I’m one of just a few
minimifidianistic like.
Taking my cue from the likes of you,
a fimblefambled fissilingual fike.

                                   B. Withers 1989
                               (in ‘Catharsis’1992)

minimifidianistic - Having almost no faith or belief.
fimblefambled    - Giving phoney excuses and lying answers
fissilingual         - Having forked tongue
fike                   - An itch, or anything annoying.

I was called to jury duty a few years ago for a child assault case against a native american child so it was in federal court, but as it turns out my oldest daughters first friend from kindergarden was killed by her mothers abusive boyfriend, and when it came time to select jurors they polled us if we had any predjudice and i raised my hand, so i was called up to the side of the judge and was sworn in but instructed by the judge to lower my voice and tell them why, i was so nervous as both lawyers and court stenographer and judge standing around me, so i explained and that was it they dismissed me. 

Few cases are as wrenching as those.  At least you were honest.

  Henry, great post as usual. The topic of our justice system is as controversial as politics, but talked about a lot less. As usual, in theory it works just fine. It's when you add the human component that things get all screwed up. Luckily (or unluckily) the general public has no clue as to how our justice system works behind the scenes, or public outrage would explode. But the conversation always ends with the same question.........what do you replace it with? Every system that involves human interaction will be frought with the same issues......graft, power, ambition, lies, who you know, who they know, etc. That's probably why it's not talked about much. With politics you have a few choices of governance.......but there aren't too many choices for systems of justice. The only way I can deal with the whole mess is to try to avoid getting involved with the justice system in the first place. Because once you get sent thru the ringer and understand what a clusterf*&k you're dealing with you'll never be the same. So I do what most do, which is turn a blind eye, avoid trouble and the whole shebang, and feel sorry for those who do get caught up in it. I've got family members who are highfaluting Manhattan lawyers, so I've seen and heard firsthand the disgraceful and unjust goings on behind the scenes. You're a former lawyer, so you've lived it. It's not pretty.

later,

bob

Bob:  I could give you a fairly cogent response to every justice system issue, but at bottom it boils down to the human factor, as you say.  Put a good man or woman into a position, good things often happen.  Put an incompetent there, chaos ensues.  Like politics, eh?  BTW, tho' I'm retired, I'm not a "former."  Some things last forever, like pond scum.  :)

Hi Henry,

  Yes, I suppose once a lawyer.......always a lawyer! But in truth there has to be a lot of "good" lawyers out there, who aren't seeking riches and fame, who just work the daily grind to simply help folks.  It's like that in a lot of professions, the few bad eggs ruin the reputations of all.  I'm sure the temptations are great throughout a lawyer's career, so the fact that you came out as good as you went in says a lot for you!  It's good to know there ARE some good ones out there..........the trouble is just finding them.

regards,

bob