the american [criminal] jury trial

thomas jefferson (take him for what he is, separate the art from the artist — i guess and big asterisk: but he definitely raped SAlly hemmings and fathered many of her children) once compared the american jury trial to an anchor.¹ it is the only time in which the people are entrusted with the power to hold the government to the standards of the constitution. i think it is commonly lost in colloquial conversation about criminal trials that there is no requirement of the person to be innocent. the defendant is given the benefit of the doubt. reasonable doubt. it is the governments burden and theirs alone to meet that standard. if the standard is not met, the person should not be found guilty.

the burden is the highest we have in all evidentiary hearings. meaning, there is no higher requirement for the sufficiency of evidence to make a finding. nowhere in the system are you forced to prove the case with such force. no higher obstacle to even get evidence in. so the question is: what is sufficient? what is reasonable? what standard would YOU want to be held to?_²

i am hard pressed to say that the jury is always right. in fact, i think it is more of a somewhat stacked shuffled deck than a “jury of your peers.” as the “available” juror is much different than random people chosen from society. who is signed up for jury duty, in what geographic area, who actually attends, and who is actually selected probably more closely resembles some kind of consistent group than say “the cross section” of society that is demanded by law. plus the “voir dire” process — or asking all these people a list of questions aimed at getting to bias — is more of a rushed cursory overview of bias (that the judiciary is incentivised to keep simple in favor of judicial efficiency–as many jurors would likely be disqualified for their opinions).

so what you’re left with is a mixed bag. the evidence is limited in its introduction because the rules of its admissibility are intentionally handcuffed (no pun intended). the jury a bit of an unknown — and probably biased (but i guess we all are?). and judges have discretion to make decisions that impact outcome on the spot.

but dammit if it isn’t a wonderful thing for the people to be directly involved in reviewing government action rather than voting for people to make that decision for them. or be completely ousted from ever doing that all together because they are not part of the shadow curriculum of the path to judgeship.

ill take that gamble for other peoples lives any day of the week. including tomorrow. (:

¹ a commonly tested question on the wais iv iq test is: “how are an anchor and a fence similar?” the answer is that they both restrict movement–i found this clever and now you cant take a wais test for like 5 years.

² this question is probably objectionable and would not allowed to be asked in a trial — as it removes the jury from the impartial to the position of the defendant, arguably the standard will be less “objective” and more personal.