This is an essay I wrote for a scholarship. What are your thoughts on this?
“The founders considered the right of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign. Juries represent laymen’s common sense and keep the administration of law in accord with the feelings of the community.” – William H. Renquist
Ask any person today what they think of jury duty and you are guaranteed to find the majority wishing that they had never heard of such a thing. It is an inconvenience. In 1787, people jumped at the opportunity to take an active role in the government. Nowadays most could care less about this right perhaps out of apathy, but most likely out of a failure to grasp the momentous importance of the right to trial by jury.
The United States Constitution is arguably the greatest statement of man’s rights and liberties ever known. Etched forever in the memory of the world are three words that shaped a nation’s destiny; “We the People.” Imbedded in these words is the very foundation of our rights and liberties.
As the cornerstone of the civil justice system, the jury embodies the words, “We the People.” It is the citizens of the United States who are the unspoken fourth component of the checks and balances system. The entire foundation of the United States is founded on the idea that the people are who are in control. Without the right to trial by jury, our rights are open to violation because it takes out the most crucial check on the government, which are the people. The jury is part of that foundation; it protects citizens from oppression by the government. The right to trial by jury is so critical that the Constitution was almost not ratified because it did not guarantee that right. Justice Hugo Black summed it up nicely when he said, “Our duty to preserve the Seventh Amendment is a matter of high Constitutional importance. The founders of our country thought that trial by civil jury was an essential bulwark of civil liberty and it must be scrupulously safeguarded."
The purpose of the jury is to weigh and question the facts to reach a justified result. In civil cases, the strength of the jury empowers democracy and maintains loyalty to the principles of justice that this country was founded upon. Without it, we would unintentionally open ourselves to corruption, negligence and the unwitting erosion of our rights and liberties.
You have pretty much captured the essence of why it is important.
I have been scheduled for jury duty about 10 times in my life. That means a 3 month period where every Sunday evening I had to call and see if my number had been summoned. Only once have I ever been summoned to show up for a trial. That once, we were seated in order by number and I along with about 100 other people got questioned enmass by the judge. He dismissed quite a few people and by the time that was done I was about 14th in line so I would have been seated as an alternate. Then the challenges by the lawyers began. I advanced a couple more places in line so I was almost seated as a juror but was eventually challenged by the defense lawyer probably because I was too white and too educated. So I got to go home. I think I was compensated about $5 for parking and about $8 for half a day of my time. My billing rate was about $105 per hour in those days. All and all jury duty is a pain in the butt. But I would like to participate in a trial. They don't call me jackhangemhighbenimble for nothing!
One of the reasons that people are less enthusiastic about serving today then they were a few hundred years ago is that trials are so long and people are very cynical about the system which is more about loopholes and splitting legal hairs then justice. In the old west, it was rare for a murder trial to last more than a day. Now they can go on for weeks.
I turned 18 in January, so I'm looking forward to participate in one even though it is a pain. What were you doing that got you $105 an hour?
Trials do last a long time, I guess nowadays because of all the forensics and everything. I like the justice system, but I dislike the system part of it, lol. Too bad we're more focused on enforcing the system and not fair justice.
I'm surprised you are only 18. You are a very clear thinker for somebody that age.
I was a consultant for Andersen Consulting which has now changed its name to Accenture. I wasn't getting payed anywhere near $105 an hour. My employer was billing my time at that rate and making a killing. I was primarily building very large computer systems for telephone companies. I spent most of my time working for US WEST which is now QWEST. I did stuff for a bunch of other phone companies too including spending a year in Australia working for Telecom Australia which is now called Telestra. I quit not long after that and at that point my billing rate was just under $200 per hour. I quit because I sold a $40 million dollar job to NYNEX (now called Verizon) and they wanted me to manage the work and that would have involved living in NY City which I was not prepared to do. I hated the place after commuting their weekly for a couple of months. I didn't really start making real money for myself until I moved home to Wyoming and started what became the largest internet provider in Wyoming which was called WAVE Communications which I sold near the top of the tech bubble and is now called VCN. You have to work for yourself if you want to be payed what you are worth. Isn't it strange that every company I have ever worked for has changed its name after I ceased to be affiiliated with them? lol
I rarely write like this or even think this clearly, lol.
Sounds like you've been busy in the tech industry. That is funny though that the companies have changed their names though, lol.
The problem with trials by jury is that jury selection is done by lawyers. Because of this, you will rarely have someone with a PhD, Law Degree, etc. In general, lawyers try to pick stupid jurors because they're easy to manipulate and go for emotional arguments rather than logical ones.
Take for instance the case of Dan White. The man unquestionably shot the Mayor of San Francisco and a member on the Board of Supervisors, and got off because he was portrayed as under a lot of stress, suffering depression. Despite the fact that he emptied 8 bullets into these two men, despite the fact that he had to walk down the hall to shoot the second man, despite the fact that he reloaded before the second shooting, he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served a 5 year 1 month sentence before getting off on parole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone-Milk_assassinations
Emily Mann has a great play called "The Execution of Justice" about the trial. If you can't see it, it's a really good read.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Ah, well know I know where the ole Twinkie Defense comes from.
That is what I see as the major flaw in the jury trial system. There has to be someway to do it so that smarter people will get on juries.
I'll definately watch the movie, it sounds pretty interesting. And I'm really surprised he got off, especially in such a pro-gay community such as San Fran.
This was right before San Francisco became the liberal paradise it is today. Back then, it was mostly Irish Catholic Conservatives (except for Castro Street which was the hub for the gay community).
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Really? I didn't know that. Irish Catholics are a tough bunch.
Yeah, after the verdict, there was a huge march-turned-riot (White Night Riot) at city hall. Police brutality on homosexuals, spread to Castro St. That's about the time that gays started looking toward San Fran as a gay-friendly (i.e., populously gay) town.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
Hmm, that is very interesting.