Once again yesterday. I came face-to-face with my human weakness. Despite being a felon I was chosen for jury duty. And I was allowed to sit in judgment of one of my fellow Americans. I desperately wanted to the task. I was even chosen as the foreman.
The problem came not because I don't believe the man was likely guilty, but rather that the prosecution made such a poor showing of its case. They had the opportunity of two witnesses, but chose to just present one. The police had the opportunity to administer up to three test to get their valid proof, but opted to use just one, the cheapest. And that one malfunctioned. But truly justice showed her weakness in the resolve of her jury foreman, namely me. For, it seems that I was the only one concerned about these shortcomings. I profess to believe that you should provide two witnesses and not just one. Even if the one is an upstanding officer and the other is just an ordinary citizen. And yet arguments from fellow jurors to the effect of, "well they couldn't bring two officers, because the other one might be needed at a bank robbery", persuaded me to not stand my ground. Or allowing the justification that the other tests weren't offered, because they're only "required" to offer one. Even if it is insufficient. Or maybe it was the fact that I was supposed to be at dinner at 5:30 and it was fairly obvious that I was unlikely to sway anyone to my side of thinking that, "if all the ducks weren't all in a row", maybe this man should be cut free. Either way, I gave in and chose to believe that there was reasonable suspicion that he was guilty. Instead of letting him go because there was reasonable doubt that he wasn't.
I believe our verdict was just. I believe six good people found him guilty. And I guess I can only speak for myself when I say that at least one of them, compromised his principles for the sake of expediency and conformity and just plain laziness.
No comments:
Post a Comment