In unit 11, my eyes opened a lot to my friends and the social situations I am put in everyday. All of my friends are very versatile and covered every aspect of this chapter. Being in the court system and observing all the different juries that are selected make it even more interesting to have read this chapter. Interesting...
Monday through Friday are the days where I encounter lawyers picking juries in order to have a fair trial in order to judge whether the person committed the crime of not. Personally, I do not think the idea of "trial by one's peers." Your "peers" are asked by the attorneys on both state and defense side, "can you be fair and follow what the judge instructs you?" Most of them say yes, when in reality they come in with predetermining thoughts. This is normal for everyone to have thoughts of whether or not someone is guilty as soon as they see that person. Once a lawyer or judge states "it is the law to perceive the defendant with a cloak of innocence and it will stay on until the state and defense has made their arguments. Then you must go in the jury room and discuss with your peers the case that was brought to you and establish whether the state made you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was guilty." Giving such a power to regular people that have no other choice but to feel obliged they must follow the law is unfair to the defendant. I feel the burden of whether the person is innocent or guilty should be determined by someone who can reasonably separate their past with what is placed in front of them, and that person should be the judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment