The last article I wrote was a light-hearted view of jury duty. I stand by that, but I also feel like jury duty cannot be given justice without a proper, more serious account of what it takes. Luckily for me, I was chosen to actually sit on a jury and decide if a fellow citizen should be held responsible for that person’s crime. I say “lucky”, but this was not a fun experience but a “This is how the world works” experience. For those chosen, jury duty is a real and important duty that we need to willingly participate in. Our way of meting out justice is fair, but it needs people and willing and open to be a part of it.
No one has a positive reaction to domestic abuse. That was the case here – domestic abuse and battery. The criminal was arrested and spent time in jail at the time, as far as I understand. The state decided to push for a felony conviction instead of a misdemeanor. The difference is the use of a “dangerous weapon” which is supposed to be used with the intent of (or potential to) cause serious injury or death. This seems straightforward, right? A gun, knife, lead pipe, 2×4, or even a tightly held garbage bag could be rightfully considered as a dangerous weapon with the above definition.
Does a pool noodle, or a coat hanger, or Styrofoam fit into that definition? Possibly. The prosecution did a great job of explaining how these or similar objects could be used as a dangerous weapon, but in his argument he really muddied the waters about what can and what shouldn’t fall in that category. The issue here is that the jury, no matter where they came from, has a level of common sense at the least and experience with the crime at the most. Thus, a large and complex grey area is created.
How do you define the grey area? Such a task can be very hard to do. Some members of the jury, who luckily have never been a victim (or perpetrator) of domestic abuse will argue that a “weapon” brought up in court falls into the dangerous category. Other members, who have unfortunately been the victim of domestic abuse in their life, can say with conviction that the same weapon is not dangerous. Partly because they had to fight a more dangerous weapon. Then there is a third side that, victim or not, the jurors took a look at the weapon and took the view of common sense, which said that the way such a “weapon” was used could be dangerous, but not in the way that it was used. This idea is backed up by the evidence presented or lack thereof.
All of the above ideas are held by mostly strong-willed persons. The next challenge that comes up is how does one juror convince the other strong-willed jurors to the most just way? On top of the finer points of the prosecution’s argument, there is also the very important facet that the defendant is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if the jury decides the defendant is guilty, there is the added challenge that there are varying layers of culpability.
Most everyone has a knee-jerk reaction to criminals. For something like domestic abuse, the most popular sentence would be jail time with a side of a public beating in the town square. If a dangerous weapon is involved, the state considers that a stronger crime than without. The difference in sentencing is literally a difference of years. Unfortunately, the vigilante justice idea most of us would subscribe to is not approved by the court.
The significance is in the sentencing. In this case, the defendant (who probably deserves the public beatdown) gets his fair share of justice. If the prosecution—state or civil—cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant achieves justice in a sense. They may still be punished for their crime, but punished appropriately according to the law. There are precedents and standard practice. And truly, one should not be over-punished for their crime. A moral grey area is again born here, but that is a topic for another time.
The jury gets this great responsibility to decide what the crime is, and pass on to the judge for release or sentencing (at least, in Louisiana the judge takes the responsibility of sentencing, not the jury). It’s extremely important for everyone involved, and it requires willing participants.
If you get the chance, don’t be one of the weak of mind who think they cannot pass judgement in the face of evidence. These folks were definitely the least regarded by prosecution, defense, and the judges. Two “voir dire”s were enough to show who is a perpetual fence-sitter, and who can contribute to our society. And this is definitely a contribution. No person is incapable of doing the right thing. Sometimes this involves dealing strongly with strong criminals.
When people who do not work with the law as a day job consider the court procedure, I would imagine there are a lot of people who see that folks are either rightly or wrongly prosecuted, period. I never would have guessed where the grey area and serious discussions would actually be present. From this real world lesson, I feel like I have a better understanding in how our system functions, how it can play out, different variables, but most importantly the real world effect and importance of the system as a whole. I wish everyone could take a shift in the jury box. Reframing the reality from our second hand impressions is very powerful.
Bayou Observant 