On Juries and Verdicts

In the Middle East, another brewing conflict. In South Asia, nearly a billion votes up for grabs. On the other side of this continent, a former President trying to continue his decades-long evasion of conviction. Pause. Yes, on that.

I am struggling currently to write on personal matters, which is totally fine. I do not intend for this blog to be consistently active. More irregular; inspiration cannot be forced and the time to dedicate to following each thread is a luxury. But rather than providing shallow commentary on current affairs, I prefer to point to pieces more wholly formed.

On this matter of law – it reminds me of one of my more controversial opinions, which I intend to articulate at some future date and find some good research on: that law in an ideal society is structured in such a way that it is embedded and expressed within a robust public system that ensures equity for those charged with crimes – that lawyers are to clients in a system of law as doctors are to patients in a functioning and well-supported public healthcare system. That law followed and considered is not dependent on one’s social standing or wealth, and the courts are not another mechanism for the upper classes to delay accountability, or a playground for endless corporate shenanigans. That cases follow a similar path for all, regardless of their means or marginalization. That wraparound supports and alternative functions are present to decide on matters that are more straightforward.

The controversial bit relates to private law and its unbearable drawbacks. To eliminate it entirely and introduce prejudice-minimizing procedures into court that draw on our best understanding of human psychology and power dynamics. That is right, no private practices or firms. A system built for the public by the public. And as amazingly naïve as that may sound, it is entirely possible. Justice is inherently difficult to achieve within any setup. The processes of interpreting, framing, and regulating societal norms (law) are an ongoing struggle to define. Particularly in a capitalist modality that offers incredible financial incentives for the entire judiciary to maintain the ridiculous status quo.

I am specifically referring to law as structured within the United States and Canada. Derived from the British and Western philosophical traditions and long codified around the individual actor, their contexts hazily adjudicated on a case-by-case basis and highly dependent on their skin color, ability, age, financial wealth, and social connections. (On their power.)

But as mentioned – this is not that post. No, instead I share with you some videos, old but worth a watch, on some of the basic and flawed assumptions and practices that are currently muddying the waters. Enjoy.