Redefining Justice
America; land of the free. Known for inhabiting a patriotic, strong, and diverse people group. Many proudly wave their flag and boast of an almost perfect democratic government, that looks out for the little guy. Acknowledging major flaws of the past, but lacking passion for modern change.
Yes, we’ve come a long way. It’s much improved considering that not long ago it was common for the courtroom to be blatantly prejudice. A very accurate and eye opening view of this is depicted in Harper Lee’s book To Kill A Mockingbird. The novel is set in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s, and has sold over 40 million copies worldwide and continues to be taught in schools across the nation. It describes the court case of a Mr. Tom Robinson (a colored man) who is being charged with the rape of a white women. He had a fully white jury. The book never clearly states whether or not Tom was actually guilty, but instead lets the evidence speak for itself which makes it clear that Tom was innocent. Yet, the end verdict of his trail was guilty.
When considering a court case, it seems evidence and lawyers would be the main decider in the verdict, but the jury can make a very large difference in outcome. The right to a fair trial with an impartial jury has been law since 1791 when it was included in the Bill of Rights. This amendment (the sixth) calls for a proper trial to have a jury of the defendant’s peers. The jury must be a proper representation of the county by which the crime was committed. So if Maycomb’s county was 16% African American, then Tom’s jury must also be approximately the same. It wasn’t.
To understand how this happens so easily, and continues to happen in current society, one must understand how a jury is selected. First, possible jurors are selected at random. Usually from a list of registered voters or licenced drivers. This is a large reason why African Americans were excluded from juries in the 1900s. Most were not legally allowed to vote and could not drive. Next, they are questioned for possible bias. Say the defendant of a case is an owner of a car dealership being charged with fraud and a member of the jury believes that car dealerships are always underhanded and deceitful. Whether the defendant is guilty or not, the juror might fail to weigh the evidence fairly, because he or she had preconceived notions on the subject. If a lawyer has evidence that a certain juror may be bias, they will have the judge dismiss the juror with cause. However, peremptory challenge is when a lawyer dismisses jurors if they feel the juror may be bias, but have no evidence. This is an option in case a lawyer senses that the juror may be lying but cannot prove it. The number of allowed peremptory challenges allowed varies per state and per circumstance.
Where this whole process often gets prejudice is the peremptory challenge. Whether it is consciously or not, lawyers are more likely to remove female or nonwhite jurors, resulting in a jury that doesn’t properly represent the the county. This also increases the chance of the jury coming to the decision of guilty. A study by DePaul Law Review in 2004 showed that (in the case of a black defendant and white victim) an all male jury with no black members decided on guity 72% of the time. When there was only one black male on the jury that number dropped to 43%, a significant decrease. Then in the case of having two black males on the jury the percentage of times the death penalty was chosen went all the way down to 36%. From the eyes of the defendant, the difference between having a 72% chance of death opposed to a 36% chance is night and day.
In the well known case of OJ Simpson, there was a jury of nine black, one hispanic, and two white jurors. It was 75% black, while the original jury pool (before with cause dismissal or peremptory challenge) was only 28% black. This means a significant number of white potential jurors were dismissed. The jury was also mostly women and all jurors were democrats. Whether this was good or not depends on which side you’re on, but either way it was clear that the jury was not balanced. It was not a true representation of the county. Nine of the final jurors answered in the bias questioning that they believed Simpson was less likely to commit murder because he was a professional athlete. That seems like clear bias towards the defendant, yet they were kept on jury. In the end, despite DNA evidence linking him to the crime, his verdict was not guilty. Obviously there is considerably more than just race, gender, and the political party of the jurors that goes into the final verdict of a trial, but these things can still make a large impact and it leaves a person wondering how the trial may have gone if Simpson had been standing in front of a true jury of his peers.
The reality is, though our government has tried mightily to provide a fair trial to all citizens, there is a deep rooted flaw that rests in the heart of Americans. Until all prejudices are completely eliminated (which I believe to be impossible), the final verdict of a case is always at risk of their influence. A jury of one’s peers is a really good start, but unfortunately it is not as easily carried out or defined as our forefathers had hoped. Some are still passionate for change but many unfortunately, lacking any ideas for improvement, have deemed the current broken system as “good enough.”
“Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial.” What Are Human Rights? | Equality and Human Rights Commission, www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial.
Chakraborty, Ranjani. “How Racism Shapes Jury Selection.” Vox.com, Vox Media, 12 Oct. 2018, www.vox.com/videos/2018/10/12/17968090/how-racism-shapes-jury-selection.
User, Super. “The O. J. Simpson Trial: The Jury.” Famous Trials, famous-trials.com/simpson/1989-jurypage.
