As we begin to learn about the importance of law and its effects on society through our Law and Society Project as well as the new documentary, "State of Hate; Dark Side of the Internet", I remembered "Who Killed Garrett Phillips" and thought about how people in our class will eventually encounter the law one way or another in life. Some of us may even have to participate in jury duty in the future.
We observed from "Who Killed Garrett Phillips" how a jury could already be biased against a defendant through hearing about the case details in their community. If a jury is biased against a defendant, the defendants won't get a fair trial. We must consider how justice is fragile in the hands of those who may be prejudiced or affected by external factors.
A 1957 film called 12 Angry Men displayed a courtroom drama in which biases of jurors had the potential to ruin the lives of an innocent defendant. In the film, a jury of 12 white men deliberate the conviction or the acquittal of a defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt. The defendant was a 19-year-old Hispanic youth from the slums who was charged with first degree murder of his father. The jury consisted of lower-middle to middle class men. The case began as a clear cut case, the popular verdict was conviction that the boy was guilty. However when the case began, jury members were only focused on getting the case overwith so they could continue on with their lives.
The case was later saved by juror eight who persisted to find out the truth. Some jurors were heavily prejudiced because of their own beliefs and assumptions that they had a difficult time accepting other perspectives and truly examining the evidence. Juror three showed his prejudice towards those who live in lower socioeconomic areas saying, "It's the kids. That's the way they are--you know, they don't listen." As the jurors reviewed the evidence, each juror eventually realized that there was not enough evidence to convict the boy of murder. Even juror three changed his vote to not guilty.
The relevance of 12 Angry Men and the cases that we've examined in addition to the cases that we will continue to examine in Global Connections is that prejudice obscures the truth. The jury who reviewed Nick Hillary may not have had a person like juror eight in 12 Angry Men, thus their prejudice may have led them to convict Hillary of an act that the evidence simply did not prove. In essence, we must strive become more self-aware of our own biases and try our best to look at all of the evidence before passing judgments on people who are different from us if we strive to uncover truth.
I think that sadly, juror 8, in most trials does not exist. I think so many people when going into jury duty automatically assuming the defendant is guilty, especially if it is a high profile case, like Nick Hillary's or any case in general with its fair share of media coverage. Most of the time, the media skews the person charged of a crime to seem guilty, even if they may not be, because it makes a more interesting story than just saying 'well we don't know quite yet'. Even from just reading an article that has the defendants name and the word 'guilty' in it can cause immense bias in the readers mind whether or not they realize it. I know that I have been biased, by media coverage, and I have automatically believed what I saw and heard, even if there was no evidence. People look to the media now more than ever for information and news and biased media coverage of court cases, is a big problem. There is no way to get rid of biased news, because there is freedom of the press written into the first amendment. However, people need to be made aware of the sources of their bias, and be more careful, not just paying attention to their internal biases but external biases as well.
ReplyDelete