In April of 2008, Texas Child Protective Services conducted a raid on a little-known, peaceful community near Eldorado, Texas, removing almost 500 children from their homes in order to investigate claims of physical and sexual abuse. With the boom of media coverage that immediately followed, it seemed impossible that any politically aware American could not have heard of the drama surrounding the Yearning for Zion Ranch. People from all over the nation began to debate the justice (or lack thereof) of state intervention into private and religious matters with the aim of defending constitutional rights for the innocent.
But now, as courts begin to review the charges of crimes placed upon twelve male members of this fundamentalist sect, another, more subtle question comes into play. With a population of just under 3,000, Schleicher County (composed of Eldorado and the surrounding area) is tight-knit to say the least. Though not all county members belong to the sect itself, they doubtless all have a more intimate knowledge of the proceedings than other Americans observing through the television screen. With only this population to choose from, the Texan courts handling the case must now answer a very important question: who to pick for the jury?
Ideally, no one in a jury would know anything about a case beforehand, limiting their basis of reasoning to the facts presented in court. When this is not possible, the goal is for the chosen members of the jury not to have any predetermined opinions about the case, as this would presumably alter their decision-making process. We might compare this practical situation to such theoretical political ideas as Rawls’ “original position” or Smith’s “impartial spectator,” where all citizens taking part in society are expected to (at least hypothetically) separate themselves from their biases in order to come to just conclusions. The real world, and the case at hand especially, presents a practical challenge to this assumption. It seems clear that at this point the courts will not be able to form a jury that is completely ignorant, as it were, of the case at hand. At best, they might find a group of 12 people who at least claim to have no preconceptions about the justice or injustice of the situation. (Otherwise, according to law, the trial will need to be moved elsewhere {but would even this solve the problem?}) Though it must be taken into consideration that over a year and a half has elapsed since the original event occurred; surely the townspeople couldn’t have simply blocked all knowledge of the event from their everyday conversations and thought processes. In this situation, we might wonder: can the state reasonably rely on such undeniably human subjects as it can find to set aside their beliefs—not even to create a comprehensive theory of justice—but just to deliberate fairly on a single trial?
[Just for comparison, imagine something similar occurring within Princeton’s secluded campus community of a mere 5,000 undergraduate students. Could any of those exemplary moral and logical minds feasibly remain unbiased enough to serve as impartial judges in a case that begins and ends so close to home?]
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/26/dl.jc.polygamist.cnn
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/jury-selection-in-us-polygamist-trial-20091027-hhp7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldorado,_Texas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think this is a problem with the idea of trying to find an impartial judge - such a thing can never truly be found. But it calls into question the assumption that we actually need a truly impartial judge. For, if those people are committing such blatantly immoral acts, isn't it obvious that they should be prosecuted, and the children should be taken out of that situation? In fact, the people of the town, if they have greater knowledge, they could use that knowledge as extra evidence for incriminating the people there. If it's clear that there is injustice and it's clear that these people will overlook it (such as a trial of a black man in the old south), then by all means, use a different jury. Of course, if there's no one in the entire country who isn't biased, then there clearly is nothing we can do. But if there are people in the country who aren't biased, they'll be able to realize if one particular people has some obvious problematic bias.
The case presents a very interesting study of impartiality in jury contexts. However, by your logic it seems that we would never be ever to find an impartial jury in any case. However, our judicial system rests on the assumption that individuals can indeed rid themselves of any constitutive elements that may impede their fair judgment in cases presented before the court. And, if such impartiality is impossible, the legal system has provided mechanisms by which to rectify the situation. Entering a jury requires an intense interview process to help determine the viability of a potential juror's position in the case. Additionally, if the practicality of a jury is determined impossible by the nature of a given political community, there are mechanisms by which the case can be moved to other districts where an impartial jury can be found.
I think if you compare this news story with Rawls’s original position you will notice that there is one more detail that contributes to analogy in this case more so then any other standard criminal trial—the prominence of self interested actors. In this trial in El Dorado, Texas, the more important attribute that the lawyers should be looking for, if they are seeking a just trial, is for the unaffected juror. In a typical criminal trial, the juror is completely separate from the case, and its outcome will have no effect on any of the members of the jury. That’s is the most key factor in being the impartial juror. The idea is that if the case has no influence on your life, ignoring any political or philosophical beliefs, then you would be impartial and sufficiently able to make a rational lawful decision on the case. But in El Dorado, the jury selection process will not be like that at all. The town is too small for there to be anyone in it that will not have their life changed by this trial; the outcome would be either to their benefit or their detriment. For example, a juror could be a storeowner and lose some of their best costumers. This turns the jurors into self interest actors that, being self-interested, would judge the case that would give themselves the best advantage, and not necessarily judge it to produce the most just situation. Rawls’s original position works in the same fashion. It is based on the actions of ration self-serving actors. But, in the original position they are hidden by the veil of ignorance, and in this trial the jury members are not thus the validity of the jury falls through just as Rawls’s explain the original position would if the was no veil of ignorance.
I say move the trial to somewhere else.
BM
It is a great analogy there between the original position and the jury in the court. Indeed, the idea behind the jury is to have 12 unbiased and disinterested citizens making a verdict on a case.
However, there is another reason behind the idea of having a group of jury rather than the judge to decide a case. Even though judges are usually more familiar with precedents and relevant legal knowledge about a case, and most of the time judges are also equally disinterested in a case, the constitution still requires a group of jury sitting by the court and deciding the case. The reason behind that is: the defendant should be judged by his/her peer. In other words, the defendant should be judged by a group of people who are similar to the him/her or can imagine themselves in his/her position. That is similar to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" -- some part of the judicial system was designed to favor the defendant.
Therefore, to certain extent, having a person familiar with the fundamentalist sect acting as a jury member can partially be justified.
It must be noted that the jury system is intended to create a decision making body in the same way that the original position is. Because there are twelve distinct people that need to draw a common conclusion, it can be assumed that not all of them share a common upbringing and views. Even in a population of only 3,000 people it can be assumed that there will be various opinions throughout the town. Keep in mind that this case won't just draw jurors from the town, but from the whole county, meaning that there will be plenty of people represented from different backgrounds. Consider, again, the Princeton campus - or rather a community college campus. Even though the college would be drawing its students from one area, it would be silly to assume that they all would hold the same ideas on every subject. This jury would still be comprised of people with varying views who would compete ideologically with each other to reach a common conclusion. This group of people, like the original position, is intended to pursue common justice by removing the influence background and upbringing would have on any one person.
Post a Comment