"Justice for All"

We all toss around idealistic ideas in hopes that they can be used as inspiration for production of the real thing – but “justice for all” is in particular a far reaching one - particularly when one is being tried for a murder they haven’t committed and can look forward to being judged by a jury. The idea is novel enough - in an effort for fairness a diverse group of an accused’s peers will watch a parade of evidence be presented to them and together will deliberate until they agree on a verdict. In the meantime however, that same theory presupposes that while a diverse group represents a myriad of values and cultures, it also can put aside differences that enable some individuals to be more influential than others during deliberations. It also assumes that this jury, though they are common people, can thoroughly understand the law as it applicable in this case, that they are culpable for the decision reached, and will not be easily manipulated by sly tactics employed by attorneys on either side. If, say, a jury is composed of a few upper class members and a bunch of lower class jurors, will deliberations and therefore the judgment be reached predominately by those few? And if so, as if likely, will those few truly be representative of a jury of your peers? If a jury is confused about the application of the law in this case, say by being convinced that in order to consider mitigating factors they must all agree that a mitigating factor exists when in fact that isn’t the case, will a sentence be handed down that is fair to the specific case of the murder being considered? Add to that the likelihood that you are appointed a lawyer who has five other cases, is being paid $5 an hour, and usually shows up either sleep deprived or perhaps slightly intoxicated, and soon, if you are on trial for murder, fully aware of all of the things that can go wrong, even as an innocent you would sit and watch with beads of sweat constantly flowing. (Which will undoubtedly be mistaken by the jury as a sign of sure guilt.)

The solution to these problems is multi-pronged. While it is tempting to declare that the jury is unfixable and must be abolished in favor of conviction and sentencing by a judge, recent research has indicated that in fact juries often come back with similar findings that a judge found in the same case. (Specifically, as found by Kalven and Zeisel during a survey of criminal trial judges, the judges disagreed with the findings of the jury in 22% of the cases.) And a jury gives the added bonus of being able to occasionally practice jury nullification in cases where public sentiment is perhaps rapid changing. (This is congruous with the fact that mankind tends to become more ethical as time goes on because he can afford to.) In other words, a jury is certainly more malleable than a judge who must behave as a function of the law as it is and this can be a plus. Instead, there are ways to redesign the jury in such a way that it is more reliable – such as improving pattern jury instruction, and requiring that a jury provide reasons for a decision in a case that reflect the law.