This commentary is by Jeffrey Reel, a writer/lecturer who lives in Hartland.
I was recently summoned to sit on a jury pool. During the jury selection process, the prosecuting attorney referenced the television drama “NCIS” a few times to the prospective jurors. I’ve never seen the show. I haven’t watched crime shows since “Perry Mason,” but I imagine that virtually every episode of every series since then ends with the guilty being convicted and the innocent enjoying the fruits of their freedom. There is never a miscarriage of justice.
In real life, we know that our court system doesn’t always deliver justice. We know that people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit, having to serve years, perhaps a lifetime, even execution, and that the guilty can and do walk free.
There’s a number of reasons the innocent are convicted, from incompetent representation to withheld evidence. Another reason is that juries are not infallible. Far from it. Even after careful jury selection, jurors are still prone to misjudging evidence, allowing biases — especially on a subconscious level — to influence their decisions and mischaracterizing witnesses and their behavior on the stand.
During the session I sat in on, potential jurors were asked how they might determine whether a witness is lying or telling the truth on the stand. The standard litany of responses was offered: Does the person appear nervous, does he/she avoid eye contact, do they “sound” like they’re not telling the truth.
I cannot recall the number of times I have misinterpreted those signs in people. I am often a poor judge of character. I find myself misjudging people every day. Realizing this might make me a better person, but it makes for a lousy juror and, of more importance, a dangerous one.
Jurors also need critical thinking skills to evaluate the evidence: that is, the ability to question, examine, interpret, evaluate, reason and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify a position — thinking carefully about the evidence, without allowing biases or feelings, exclusively, to affect them.
Critical thinking requires, at minimum, a sixth grade reading comprehension in order to develop this essential skill. The U.S. Department of Education reports that over half of American adults possess a level of literacy below sixth grade level — that is to say, the majority of Americans are below the level for developing and using critical thinking skills. How does this impact a juror’s ability to evaluate and decide cases and determine the fate of defendants?
And how should we actually judge each other? In the words of Eastern philosopher George Ohsawa: “To judge is to know the ultimate cause, with the view toward freeing the person from his original error. To judge outside this framework of truth is to inflict punishment, and punishment never works.”
This is why I favor the concept of “restorative justice.” While it cannot be applied in every situation, I find it hard to sit in judgment when that alternative is available. Restorative justice is described as a way to “bring together those most affected by the criminal act (the offender, the victims, community members) in a non-adversarial process to encourage offender accountability and meet the needs of the victims to repair the harms resulting from the crime.”
We practice in this country what is called an adversarial system of law, from the Latin “adversus,” meaning “to be against.”
And then there’s the act of being sworn in. Prior to the start of the trial, the pool of jurors is required to swear allegiance to the following, or similar, oath: “You solemnly swear that, without respect to persons or favor of any man, you will well and truly try and true deliverance make, between the State of Vermont and the prisoner at the bar, whom you shall have in charge, according to the evidence given you in court and the laws of the State. So help you, God.”
Swearing allegiance to that oath would violate my religious freedom, and I am surprised it is not obvious to the court system, practicing Christians and clergy.
The Book of Matthew records the words of Jesus spoken during the Sermon on the Mount. During his talk, Jesus refers to the Book of Numbers, predating him by 600 years, where it commands that when a person makes an oath to God, he/she is bound to honor it.
But Jesus rejects this notion and instead offers a more enlightened one. He commands his followers to never make oaths at all, especially to God. Instead, he says to simply let our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.” That is, our word should always be truthful and honorable, that there are not times when we are bound by our words and times when we are not.
The vast majority of Christians, and our democratic institutions, routinely disobey that command. They even go so far as to place their hands upon the Christian Bible — upon those very words of the Christ — and swear an oath to God. I don’t believe it is an act of defiance. I believe it’s an act of ignorance. Yet the system remains mired in this archaic practice.
It is interesting to note that the Quran, written 1,200 years after the Book of Numbers, first introduces to the people of Persia that same command to honor those oaths made in the name of Allah, and it remains in force to this day as a religious and civil code. So, ironically, when Muslim representatives are sworn into Congress with their hands placed upon the Quran, they are acting in accordance with the dictates of their faith, while Christians are not.
