Thoughts on Jury Duty, Part 2 (this is the part where I actually write about jury duty....)
My little stint on jury duty was rather interesting. While some people try to get out of jury duty, I actually was hoping to be picked, because I was curious to see what it was like. In the end, after hours of sitting through “voir dire”, listening to the lawyers ask the potential jurors the same questions over and over, I ended up being picked as the alternate juror. That meant that I would listen to everything, but wouldn’t participate in the deliberations, unless someone got sick or was otherwise indisposed (which they didn’t).
It was interesting to see the way the legal process works. Not surprisingly, being a sort of bureaucracy, it was quite slow. We never started on time at the beginning of the day, after a break, or after lunch. “Publishing” any evidence to the jury meant a long wait while we slowly passed the items around. And about every 10 minutes (ok, maybe not quite that often), we had to wait while the lawyers and the judge conferred about some objection. The thing that surprised me most to find out was that jurors can ask the witnesses questions. After the cross examinations finished, we were asked if we had any additional questions. If anyone did, they were given a piece of paper to write it on and sign. Then the judge and lawyers reviewed it. If the question or possible answer was deemed objectionable, it was not asked, but otherwise the judge then asked our question, and the witness answered.
Deliberations were predictably slow. The first half was interesting – seeing how people related, interacted. (If you haven’t seen Twelve Angry Men, you should sometime. You can borrow it from me!) After about an hour and a half, though (it took 3 hours in total), I started to go a little crazy as the same arguments kept happening over and over, especially from people who seemed, in my opinion, to not be interpreting the law correctly. In my head ran the following lines from The Shawshenk Redemption:
Of course, being the alternate, I was unable/not allowed to say anything at all. So I ended up eating too many donuts left over from breakfast and drinking two cans of Coke to distract myself.
In the end, the jury found the defendant guilty of drug possession. It was interesting that the moment that hit home to me was when the verdict was read. The defendant didn’t make a big scene or yell or cry like on TV. He just slowly lowered his head.
Implications?
1. I certainly don’t think cocaine dealers should get a free pass, but it was sad to see how he was most likely trapped in a cycle of bad choices – who knows if he will ever get out? Sometimes I wonder if I have a good life because I’m wise and make good choices, or because I’m fortunate enough that making good and healthy choices is easy for me.
2. Most likely, this guy was replaced long ago and there are other desperate people helping to continue the cycle of addiction. Do our “correctional facilities” really help anyone correct unhealthy lifecycles or do they just make people come out worse? I’m thinking the latter. If we really care about helping people change so they don’t become repeat offenders how do we do that?
My little stint on jury duty was rather interesting. While some people try to get out of jury duty, I actually was hoping to be picked, because I was curious to see what it was like. In the end, after hours of sitting through “voir dire”, listening to the lawyers ask the potential jurors the same questions over and over, I ended up being picked as the alternate juror. That meant that I would listen to everything, but wouldn’t participate in the deliberations, unless someone got sick or was otherwise indisposed (which they didn’t).
It was interesting to see the way the legal process works. Not surprisingly, being a sort of bureaucracy, it was quite slow. We never started on time at the beginning of the day, after a break, or after lunch. “Publishing” any evidence to the jury meant a long wait while we slowly passed the items around. And about every 10 minutes (ok, maybe not quite that often), we had to wait while the lawyers and the judge conferred about some objection. The thing that surprised me most to find out was that jurors can ask the witnesses questions. After the cross examinations finished, we were asked if we had any additional questions. If anyone did, they were given a piece of paper to write it on and sign. Then the judge and lawyers reviewed it. If the question or possible answer was deemed objectionable, it was not asked, but otherwise the judge then asked our question, and the witness answered.
Deliberations were predictably slow. The first half was interesting – seeing how people related, interacted. (If you haven’t seen Twelve Angry Men, you should sometime. You can borrow it from me!) After about an hour and a half, though (it took 3 hours in total), I started to go a little crazy as the same arguments kept happening over and over, especially from people who seemed, in my opinion, to not be interpreting the law correctly. In my head ran the following lines from The Shawshenk Redemption:
“Why are you being so obtuse?”
”What did you call me?”
”Obtuse. Is it deliberate?”
Of course, being the alternate, I was unable/not allowed to say anything at all. So I ended up eating too many donuts left over from breakfast and drinking two cans of Coke to distract myself.
In the end, the jury found the defendant guilty of drug possession. It was interesting that the moment that hit home to me was when the verdict was read. The defendant didn’t make a big scene or yell or cry like on TV. He just slowly lowered his head.
Implications?
1. I certainly don’t think cocaine dealers should get a free pass, but it was sad to see how he was most likely trapped in a cycle of bad choices – who knows if he will ever get out? Sometimes I wonder if I have a good life because I’m wise and make good choices, or because I’m fortunate enough that making good and healthy choices is easy for me.
2. Most likely, this guy was replaced long ago and there are other desperate people helping to continue the cycle of addiction. Do our “correctional facilities” really help anyone correct unhealthy lifecycles or do they just make people come out worse? I’m thinking the latter. If we really care about helping people change so they don’t become repeat offenders how do we do that?
Labels: culture
posted by mennorose @ 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home