It grossed you out to even see this thread title didn't it. This has been urking me for a few days now. I was up for Jury Duty once again on Monday and for the first time I actually had the time to sit on a jury. I was actually hoping to get put on a jury because I've never done it before. That was - until I got into the courtroom. It was a child molestation case - 4 counts against a man from San Diego. It made me sick just to hear them read the charges. It came time to ask questions of the jurors and would you believe it? 5 out of the first 12 seated jurors had personal experience with child molestation - either they were molested, their kids were molested, or they had a convicted child molester in the family! We took a break and the buzz was abound that this guy was going to get convicted no matter what. I ended up getting sat in the jury box at one point and I had two choices - answer as if I would be fair and then convict the guy, or answer truthfully and get kicked off the jury. The third option - listen to the facts of the case and make a fair decision - simply wasn't going to happen. What if I let a guy go and he went out and molested again? Do I want a guy like that running around when I have children? Argue with me all you want about the right thing to do, but if I was selected, there was no way he was getting anything less than a guilty and put him away for life vote from me. I actually do believe in our justice system, so I was honest about my feelings. The judge asked me if what I know about the case so far would prevent me from being fair and impartial. I responded yes. He pressed again and I got about 9 words out before he shut me up and got me out of that room as quickly as possible. I think two of them were Mother F... but I really don't know. I don't think I've ever been so pissed off at a guy - it caught me by surprise because I'm generally more generous than most when it comes to judging people. The thing that really got to me is how prevalent child molestation is in our society. It's mind boggling, disgusting, and just plain wrong.
I can't blame you for that - but this is exactly why our justice system doesn't work. Not everyone is as honest as you were.
You just have to seperate the two sides of your mind. The left side of your brain decides innocence or guilt. The right side of your brain wants to kill the guy. You can't let the right side do its job until the left side is finished. If he was guilty, then you should not feel bad at all about wanting to take a shovel to his skull until nothing was left but bloody pulp. If he wasn't guilty, then no worries. No? Perhaps I am missing something? I often do miss things on these human issues.
nevetS, I don't envy you. Who the hell would want to sit through that trial? On the other point, I'm not judging you, but it's difficult to hear you say in one sentence that the guy would have gotten guilty from you, no matter what. Then, in the next sentence, you say that you have faith in the justice system. Those two statements are difficult to reconcile. Good for you for standing up and telling the truth, though.
well no matter what your personal opinion of the crime, you have to make a judgement based on facts. Ok, screw loopholes... I mean if there IS REAL evidence to prove guilt then nail him to the wall, otherwise you must assume that they have the wrong man. That's the thing, "regular" people are NOT fit to judge. They ALWAYS let emotions an opinions get in the way. Now that can be good if you are truly dealing with a guilty party, but the fact is sometimes (often) inocent people get locked up because of this. What can I say... nothing really, that's just sad.
I think if you sat through the trial and there was absolute proof he was innocent over the course of the trial your common sense would kick in and see the facts. Having said that I do not blame you for you attitude, just the topic is sick without even hearing the charges and I'm sure there is a very good reason he was in court in the first place.
It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Unfortunately that's just something they say and don't really mean
I think most people on a jury go in with the impression the person on trial is guilty, I'm sure I would.
Exactly. Do remember that innocent people, men and women, have been accused of crimes against children, or indeed any other crime, in the past. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this particular man was not guilty. That said, I do understand that it might be very difficult for certain jurors to even hear the details of the evidence in such cases.
Why? Do you really have that much faith in the police and crown prosecutors? I've been involved in enough trials professionally to know that sometimes they simply have the wrong person. And that other times, there was no crime to begin with - angry ex-spouses or girlfriends and divorced parents in custody disputes have been known to lay false charges, as one example.
It is very surprising how many people were molested at one point in their life. I'm thankful that I was never one of them, but I know two people very close to me that were. My general thought on molestation is that the guilty party (after enough evidence has been brought forward to proove the claim of course), should spend life in prison. Ideally they will be paired up with a very big top who will show them the true mean of molestation every night in their cell. Some things are just wrong, this is one of them. That being said, I think people do bias their opinion about suspected parties very easily. As such, jurers and judges, while they probably do try to remain impartial, I'm sure there have been several instances where they failed and let their feelings get in the way instead of acting on the evidence at hand.
Well I believe that you made the right decision. Here's why: Firstly the jury is supposed to listen to the facts and make a decision (ideally). And if the man was innocent (which I don't know) is that those who thought like you would have imprisoned him. Don't get me wrong, I share your sentiments as well, and I wouldn't want to sit through that type of trial either. But justice is supposed to be impartial. And it wouldn't have been if you were on that jury. Skinny
In response to yo-yo and Minstrel, I just think it's human nature to make that assumption although I may be wrong. Although innocent people do go on trial and some even are convicted the odds are pretty slim of it happening. All i'm saying is that nevetS' reaction is very understandable and in all honosty I'd probably feel the same way, right or wrong.
I think you might be surprised to find out how often it happens. The papers report when someone is arrested or charged and they report when someone is found guilty. In most cases, it is not considered "news" when the verdict is not guilty, unless the accused was someone well known or the case was notorious for some other reason.
So here's a question, you are on a jury in a murder trial. You're pretty sure, but not 'beyond a showdow of reasonable doubt', the person is guilty. Do you convict and risk sending an innocent man to jail on acquit and risk sending a killer on the street? Technically you should acquit, but I'm sure have a hard time sleeping at night, especially if he/she re-offended.
I've been on the selection panel for juries before - just never selected. The difference in this case was astounding. In the past, the first 18 that got selected to be in the box were wriggling and worming all they could to get out of the jury - saying anything and everything in an attempt to get dismissed. All while the rest of the room was raising their hands and giving excuses trying to get out before they even got called up. This one was different. A few people made a statement similar to mine - that the nature of the case made it difficult for them to be impartial - but every one of them caved when pressed and said they could be impartial. In the past, when we got a break, there was no talking and certainly no talking about the case. This time when we left people started talking the second we got out the door. You could here statments like "We're gonna whack that guy!" and "Did you see that creep? He did it. That guy is guilty." I almost thought that the first 18 were going to be the jury. I was like #23 so I didn't get to see what the final jury looked like.