I am on jury duty this week.
We are going through voire dire right now, and I have not been chosen for the panel yet, but given my education and profession, I am finding the process more interesting than usual.
On my way to the courthouse, it struck me that jurors think about a lot of things on their way to court- where to park, how do I get out of this, etc. The one thought that does not often cross their mine is the defendant.
Odd.
Suddenly it struck me that somewhere in the Larsen Justice Center of Indio there was a person who was waiting for a twelve people to be selected who would decide his fate (it was in fact a guy)
Twelve people who would try their level best to get out of it. Twelve people who live in a country that fights wars around the world so people will have this privilege and who are now looking at their watches and formulating excuses.
Understandably, when the judge questioned me he asked me if my Doctorate in Criminal Justice would influence me. He answered his own question by saying he assumed an MD on the panel would have opinions on a malpractice suit. He then asked me if I thought I could be neutral. I told him that I had been known to argue points of law, but as a man's future was at stake here, I would do my level best.
The response to my mentioning the "elephant in the room" was pretty astounding.
The judge actually did a double take looking at me with curiosity.
You could here a pin drop in the courtroom.
The DA glared at me. How dare I remind everyone that this was not about us, but rather about the defendant?
I am a theorists, an academic and a criminologist. In my world, by the time we get to court, there have been layers upon layers of community and social failures that have occurred and we have funneled down to this now. Twelve people who want to be somewhere else deciding your fate.
But it is the best we have got.
And it is better than most.
