Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Whom Does a Jury Serve?
I remember a news story from a few years ago. If I get some details wrong, feel free to correct me. But as I recall, a young girl, maybe 14 or 16 years old, was raped and killed, I think in Texas. The killer got out on a technicality or something (again, I don’t remember the details). After his release, he was eating in a restaurant, and the deceased girl’s mother walked right up to his table in the restaurant, shot him six times in the chest, laid her handgun on the table, and raised her hands in surrender. She was arrested and charged with murder and the jury found her not guilty even though an entire restaurant full of people had watched her kill the guy. Presumably, because at least some people on that jury thought that her actions were reasonable. As a father of daughters, I struggle to find fault with the mother’s actions myself.
That is my understanding of the importance of a jury trial. Does a jury of your peers feel that the law is appropriately applied in your particular case? I hesitate to write about this because Ricochet’s lawyers know a whole lot more about these concepts than I do, but I see our jury system as a buffer between the defendant and the blind justice system our founders constructed. The only reason I bring it up is that I think the jury system is working against the defendant, rather than for him, in the Chauvin case, which may be appropriate depending on your perspective, I suppose.
Jerry pointed out early on that George Floyd’s death may not have been what it initially appeared to be. I was skeptical of his posts initially, but sure enough, the autopsies showed that Floyd died of a drug overdose. My wife points out that it doesn’t matter what he died of, because the jury had made up their mind before the trial started, because they’re on social media, like 95% of the US population. I’m pointing out that I’m not sure which laws, exactly, Mr. Chauvin broke. Although my wife may be right – it probably doesn’t matter – the jury has already decided. He’s guilty. Of whatever he’s charged with. The trial is just a formality. So the jury would seem to be shirking its duties.
Or, perhaps, is this exactly what a jury is supposed to do?
The jury in Texas found the mother not guilty, because in their community, at that time, they sort of had to.
The jury in Minnesota is going to find Chauvin guilty, because in their community, at this time, they sort of have to.
Everything is working the way it’s supposed to. Fortunately for the mother, and unfortunately for Mr. Chauvin. But our society lives on, according to the values which we hold important at the time. Interpreting these changing values is difficult for a legal system, but easier for a jury of our peers. Still difficult, but easier.
Again, I don’t claim to understand the legal side of all this. And I’m not sure what I think about these issues. But as you folks have probably noticed over the years, I do my best to not allow my writing to be hampered by ignorance. I know, it’s inspiring…
What do you think? Is our jury system working? No system works 100% of the time of course. But is it working in this case?
If the jury finds Chauvin guilty despite evidence to the contrary, does that mean that our jury system is broken? Or does that mean that it’s working exactly as it was supposed to?
This is a crummy case. I don’t like the optics any more than anyone else. Chauvin is a difficult guy to defend. I’m not sure what I want to happen here. I’m even less sure what should happen here.
But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m just wondering what, precisely, the purpose of a jury is? To protect an innocent man? To uphold the current values of a society at the time? To over-rule the justice system (even if no law is broken, this is still wrong)? To increase faith in our justice system by involving members of the community?
Is this jury going to uphold its duty, whatever that is, in the Chauvin case? And more importantly, should it?
What do you think?
Published in General
Understandable, but perhaps not as bad as it would have been if they were wrong and then stuck to it without rationality.
To me in a situation where a cop is subduing or trying to subdue someone resisting arrest, we ought to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. So the cop who pulled her gun instead of her taser should be excused because it was not just an accident but because it was a highly stressful and intense situation. That means someone is taking a huge risk when resisting arrest.
On the other hand, Chauvin should not be given the benefit of the doubt because he both violated police procedure and put his knee on ther neck way too long. So if the death is not clearly from some unrelated thing, we can blame the cop for at least manslaughter because it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that he would not have died at that time unless Chauvin had done what he did.
I wish that politics and public opinion would not enter into whatever the verdict is.
Chauvin didn’t violate police procedure (his exact position was in the training manual, demonstrated by the defense attorney) and his knee was not on the neck and police are told to continue to hold even after unconscious.
What complicated the situation was a hostile and rowdy crowd that made it more difficult for paramedics to arrive, not that it would have helped due to the amount of drugs in Floyd’s system.
Justice is Infrastructure.
But you can still be called on to serve as president. Keep hope alive.
My guess is that fellow police don’t want to stick their necks out, lest their heads be chopped off. The verdict has already been decided, so it’s just a matter of time to get the jury’s concurrence . . .
If I had a nickle for every complaint against a white cop by a black he interacted with, I’d be rich . . .
What ain’t?
Rule of law. A decent education. Balanced budgets. Objectivity of biological facts. Police station upgrades. Borders. Letting kids go to school. Letting adults go to work. Vaccines (but only when a Republican is President).
Do black cops complain less?
A deputy friend of mine said the black deputies he worked with had a disdain for dealing with members of their own race. I don’t know how many complaints they got filed against them . . .
It would be interesting data. But subject to much interpretation.
If nothing else, those accusations aren’t likely to get nearly as much publicity or official attention.
Except of course when it can be twisted/molded into “systemic racism.”
When the names and faces of a jury are known, or easily made available, to a brainwashed mob inflamed by an institutionally subsidized moral panic that exists to perpetuate a culturally ingrained caste system, you get To Kill A Mockingbird.
That is where we are, and it is what I expect from this jury-and if they resist such pressures, they will be Cancelled into oblivion, if not physically attacked or killed.
I’ve been wondering how secure their identities are, and I just imagined a cable News helicopter or two following them to their cars or homes.
Perhaps especially from the network whose name contains “Cable News?”
One of my favorite lines from Live PD (gee I miss that show) was from one of the black cops – a big dude. He had stopped a black driver for something or other who immediately started the “you only stopped me because I’m black” crap. This cop said “Son, I’ve been black longer than you’ve been alive, so shut up.”
No. Naw. Nevah.
Speaking of missing shows… (And the movie Serial is great in many other ways!)
Juries perform several functions. The first is to ensure they and their peers get justice, if accused. The second function is to enact punishment on the guilty to prevent mob justice and personal vengeance. Finally, by punishing criminals, they deter criminal behavior, provided a guilty verdict is followed by a sentence that deters most others. It is serious business.when the jury system breaks down, bad things happen. The system broke down. Chauvin was either innocent or guilty of a lesser crime. The jury was biased and intimidated. Chauvin can appeal. Because the system broke down, a guilty man might win on appeal but the locals will suffer from de-policing and embolden criminals. If the legal system doesn’t punish the guilty, then people will take care of business themselves. When the mob renders a verdict before a trial, justice is denied….the very thing the mob in Minneapolis was protesting, they engaged in.
They also serve to signal to the aggrieved that it’s over. Without them you get vendettas.
And if they don’t actually convince people that they have served justice you still get vendettas.
I’m afraid that if someone raped and murdered my 10 year old daughter, and it was obvious that he was guilty, and he got off on a technicality, there’d be a vendetta.
Yeah, I don’t think Issei Sagawa would still be alive if he were an American.
Don’t look that name up if you have a weak stomach.