Already when I first moved here, I felt like everyone was getting summoned for jury duty - a really strange concept that I had never heard about in Germany. But thinking about it, it dawned on me: of course the sixths amendment in this country not only guarantees a fair trial like the rule of law sets out in any democratic system but also stipulates that there should be an impartial jury deciding about any criminal's fate. For some reason I had not really made the connection that that would also mean an awful lot of people having to get recruited for these juries...
It's interesting because almost every American co worker of mine has either been asked to be part of a jury or has already been in a trial. People are quite creative in coming up with solutions of why they should not be summoned as of now, for instance they just started a new job or did not have someone to watch their kids but also when they do have to go, this won't mean that they will actually be part of the jury. Rather there is some sort of a selection process during which the jury is chosen, even googling it, I'm having trouble understanding the process. Like everything these things vary by state as well. But there is such a thing as a preemptory challenge in all states in the US which basically means that the attorneys have a right to reject certain jury members without even stating a proper reason. The intention is to avoid having people in the jury that might be biased and since both parties then agree to the final jury, the assumption is that they will be more likely to respect the verdict spoken. But of course, no that people know this process, there is actually information out there in forums explaining that you should mentioned that you had a friend/brother/family member who did a similar thing and they will likely dismiss you for being biased. Or you should even bluntly pretend to be prejudiced (although I guess a lot of people don't need to pretend that).
Still, I have to say that I'm still struggling with the concept of having a mixed group of people decide about a criminal's sentence where they might (even if found to be impartial) get influenced by the persons appearance, demeanor etc. Of course the question is if this doesn't also go for a professional judge but at least I would have hoped that he or she would have learned something more about the law and would thus be in a better position to judge... Anyway, I find it intriguing and even with the strict rules about very few vacation days, if a person is missing from work for a trial that is going on for weeks, apparently that's not an issue.
It's interesting because almost every American co worker of mine has either been asked to be part of a jury or has already been in a trial. People are quite creative in coming up with solutions of why they should not be summoned as of now, for instance they just started a new job or did not have someone to watch their kids but also when they do have to go, this won't mean that they will actually be part of the jury. Rather there is some sort of a selection process during which the jury is chosen, even googling it, I'm having trouble understanding the process. Like everything these things vary by state as well. But there is such a thing as a preemptory challenge in all states in the US which basically means that the attorneys have a right to reject certain jury members without even stating a proper reason. The intention is to avoid having people in the jury that might be biased and since both parties then agree to the final jury, the assumption is that they will be more likely to respect the verdict spoken. But of course, no that people know this process, there is actually information out there in forums explaining that you should mentioned that you had a friend/brother/family member who did a similar thing and they will likely dismiss you for being biased. Or you should even bluntly pretend to be prejudiced (although I guess a lot of people don't need to pretend that).
Still, I have to say that I'm still struggling with the concept of having a mixed group of people decide about a criminal's sentence where they might (even if found to be impartial) get influenced by the persons appearance, demeanor etc. Of course the question is if this doesn't also go for a professional judge but at least I would have hoped that he or she would have learned something more about the law and would thus be in a better position to judge... Anyway, I find it intriguing and even with the strict rules about very few vacation days, if a person is missing from work for a trial that is going on for weeks, apparently that's not an issue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment