When I first chose the topic of jury composition, I recognized that it was important in the overall scheme of the justice system. However, as I continued throught the project, I began to realize the exact significance of it, and how the racial composition of a jury can affect the outcome of a trial. All jurors have differing life experiences which help guide them in their deliberations - this is a simple fact. However, I was oblivious to the obvious. I was so certain that because jurors had different life experiences, we could expect them to deliberate fairly and equally. This is not always the case though.
The reason why having a racially diverse jury makes a difference only became clear to me after researching this project. People of different races and socioeconomic backgrounds have different interpretations of the law, and how it should be applied. This in itself was a huge revelation to me. I had never considered the possibility that justice was considered entirely different between races. To me, justice was a clear cut issue which struck down racial lines, and was something everyone could agree upon. Rather, blacks are in general more leery of the police and prosecutors, expecting more evidence than simply police testimony. Whites on the other hand are more likely to convict, and are more naive to prosecutorial techniques. If the two are combined, they will more likely disagree with one another - thus encouraging debate, and more in-depth deliberation, which ultimately leads to a fairer trial.
For me, this project was an unveiling of sorts. I took off the rose colored glasses I had worn, dating back to my upbrining in rural North Carolina. I no longer see the prosecution as a force of good and justice, but rather a conviction machine. This is not to say that they should be entirely distrusted - both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys can misrepresent the truth - but instead we should always be questioning, and never take anything as direct truth without first analyzing it thoroughly.
