This was the first time I've ever actually been picked for a jury. We heard a case in which the defendant was charged with 3 counts of family violence--discipline gone too far against a 16 year old child (at the time of the incident) who was (and still is) completely out of control. As a jury, we had to come to unanimous agreement on each of the 3 counts. This was no small task.
Who served on the jury: 6 people.
- 1 Bishop
- 1 School Principal
- 1 County level Middle School Curriculum Director
- 1 Video Editor at CNN
- 1 Mechanical Engineer
- 1 Biotech Engineer
Another view of our little group, that really became rather close:
- 4 Black people
- 2 White people
Yet another look:
One final look:
- 1 senior citizen
- 3 middle aged adults
- 2 young adults
Now, why am I telling you all of this? Because I made 2 important observations about everyone in the room, regardless of race, financial standing, professional affiliations, age, or sex.
First Observation
No one in the room trusted the judicial system to work fairly for the person on trial if found guilty--how very, very sad. Several people expressed strong opinions against mandatory sentencing and feared that if we found the defendent guilty, he would be subjected to an unreasonable sentence that would only make a very bad situation much worse.
Everyone's distrust was exacerbated by the feeling, expressed by several jurors, that the 3 charges were all really only 1 charge, as they were all the exact same statute with 3 little twists. We all believed that the prosecution had filed 3 charges in the hopes of getting at least 1 conviction: rack and stack, shoot a shotgun in the hole and see what you hit.
All of us felt like we needed more information than we were given to make the decision. All of us felt the police had done an unsatisfactory and incomplete job, failing to provide appropriate written documentation of the facts in the police report at the time of the incident.
Second Observation
Everyone in the room wanted to do the right thing, to make a fair and appropriate decision, to sincerely help a family that was in tremendous distress. No one was interested in "punishing" an evil-doer. No one thought there were any simple solutions in this case, like "throw his ass in jail." Everyone recognized that the issues surrounding all of the problems involved in the case were profoundly complex and the solutions would be time intensive and just as complex.
Outcome
We found the defendant guilty on 1 count. He made several foolish choices that could not be ignored. He needs help.
The prosecutor and the judge were much more wise than any of us, the jurors, had anticipated. Rather than sentencing the defendant to jail, the prosecutor suggested, and the judge agreed, to probation for a year with no violent contact with the now 17 year old out of control child, mandatory unannounced drug testing during the time of probation, family counseling, and completion of a course in the impact of family violence.
My only regret was that the 17 year old child was not also charged and did not also receive a similar sentence. She was astoundingly rude and disrespectful even in the court as she gave testimony. I can imagine nothing more difficult, divisive, and hurtful than "putting a family on trial."
I was pleased that this judge was more interested in helping than in just punishing. Decatur is a good place to live.
Recent Comments