The Justice System
Since having received a summons to appear for jury duty I have been contemplating the question what is justice. The Preamble to US Constitution lists establishing justice as one of the purposes of the document. In civil matters the concept of establishing that the defendant did the action and restoring the victim as much as possible seems fairly clear cut. With criminal proceedings it can become a matter of deciding how justice differs from vengeance. In STAR WARS REVENGE OF THE SITH it is noted that a Jedi principle is that "Revenge is never just" that seems to me to be a good place to start. If revenge is not justice then justice can not be about vengeance for the victim; justice has to be about focusing on assessing if the accused is the one who did the criminal action not on how much the victim suffered.
The OJ Simpson trial focused this nation's attention on the criminal justice system yet the mass media's coverage was about revenge for a horrific crime than on the function of proving the case against the accused as reasonable justice requires hence the jury's verdict came as a shock to a lot of people. The medic's reaction to the jury rewriting their story was not one of the medic's finer moments. I was not surprised by the criminal jury's verdict because I had been struck from the beginning by the LAPD's police officers disregard for the rules of justice. We were told that the officers had spoken to Simpson and knew that he was returning to from Chicago to LA yet to secure a search warrant they told a judge that his whereabouts were unknown; when conducting the search they ignore the procedural rules of the department which should leave one questioning the reliability of any evidence they produce. Why alarm bells were not being sounded by the press is a question for another day? In what the had to know would be a high profile case you would think that prudence would cause the police to dot the i and cross the t. The subsequent Ramparts investigation suggests that this flaunting of the rules of justice had become very pervasive in the LAPD. It is puzzling that the mass media has never made the connection. How can we expect justice when juries are encouraged to seek vengeance for the victim instead of being focused on examining the truth of the evidence as to the guilt of the accused?
How can jurors be expected to do their job when they are not fully informed about all the rights of the jury? In charging the jury in "State of Georgia vs. Brailsford et al" the Supreme Court stated "it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. ... you have the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." It is an affront to both the suffering of the "Hat Trial" jury and the courageous action of the American Patriots who objected to the imposition of martial law when colonial juries exercised those rights that modern juries do not know of the rights that those brave men had struggled valiantly to secure for posterity. When juror are not informed of all the rights of the jury to decide how can the verdict they render be viewed as doing justice? Would a jury fully informed of their right to decide on both the facts and the application of the law find differently than a jury who felt constrained to decide only if the evidence supports guilt?
It seems to me that justice in the criminal justice system should be about protecting society as a whole from future criminal actions by those who have shown with the criminal act in question that they will not respect the rights of others rather than seeking vengeance for the victim. It is not possible for a criminal jury to restore to the victim of a crime what they have lost. The best that the jury can do for the victim is to make the victim feel that because of what they have endured the jury will stop the perpetrator from harming anyone else; that as a result of the trial the victim has protected society as a whole from the activities of the criminal.
The OJ Simpson trial focused this nation's attention on the criminal justice system yet the mass media's coverage was about revenge for a horrific crime than on the function of proving the case against the accused as reasonable justice requires hence the jury's verdict came as a shock to a lot of people. The medic's reaction to the jury rewriting their story was not one of the medic's finer moments. I was not surprised by the criminal jury's verdict because I had been struck from the beginning by the LAPD's police officers disregard for the rules of justice. We were told that the officers had spoken to Simpson and knew that he was returning to from Chicago to LA yet to secure a search warrant they told a judge that his whereabouts were unknown; when conducting the search they ignore the procedural rules of the department which should leave one questioning the reliability of any evidence they produce. Why alarm bells were not being sounded by the press is a question for another day? In what the had to know would be a high profile case you would think that prudence would cause the police to dot the i and cross the t. The subsequent Ramparts investigation suggests that this flaunting of the rules of justice had become very pervasive in the LAPD. It is puzzling that the mass media has never made the connection. How can we expect justice when juries are encouraged to seek vengeance for the victim instead of being focused on examining the truth of the evidence as to the guilt of the accused?
How can jurors be expected to do their job when they are not fully informed about all the rights of the jury? In charging the jury in "State of Georgia vs. Brailsford et al" the Supreme Court stated "it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. ... you have the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." It is an affront to both the suffering of the "Hat Trial" jury and the courageous action of the American Patriots who objected to the imposition of martial law when colonial juries exercised those rights that modern juries do not know of the rights that those brave men had struggled valiantly to secure for posterity. When juror are not informed of all the rights of the jury to decide how can the verdict they render be viewed as doing justice? Would a jury fully informed of their right to decide on both the facts and the application of the law find differently than a jury who felt constrained to decide only if the evidence supports guilt?
It seems to me that justice in the criminal justice system should be about protecting society as a whole from future criminal actions by those who have shown with the criminal act in question that they will not respect the rights of others rather than seeking vengeance for the victim. It is not possible for a criminal jury to restore to the victim of a crime what they have lost. The best that the jury can do for the victim is to make the victim feel that because of what they have endured the jury will stop the perpetrator from harming anyone else; that as a result of the trial the victim has protected society as a whole from the activities of the criminal.
posted by candy at 6:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home