Civic Duty
I just finished my three-month term on the Grand Jury of the First Judicial Court in Santa Fe. People always joke about how unbearably boring jury duty can be and feel the need to share outrageous suggestions for how to get out of it, but I actually enjoyed the experience most of the time and learned a lot about an aspect of the community that I would have otherwise never encountered. While it was inconvenient for me professionally to be away from work once a week for three months, I appreciated the opportunity to solve problems in a different way and work with a diverse group of individuals. I'm not allowed to share specifics of any cases I heard, but I would like to share my reflections on the process and what I learned from the experience.
First of all, if you don't know the difference between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury (which I did not, prior to this experience), a Grand Jury is responsible for establishing probable cause, which then leads to an indictment. Probable cause does not mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt - it just means that there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime was committed and that the "target" (not yet labeled a "defendant") committed the offense. The Grand Jury does not determine innocence or guilt, and the decision does not need to be unanimous. Because of this, I found that we as jurors were often making decisions independently, based on the evidence presented, because there was no need to try to convince other jurors to vote a certain way. While we had to reach a decision about the indictment, we did not necessarily need to collaborate or be in full agreement, which I think is one aspect of the Grand Jury that is probably easier than serving on a trial jury. Additionally, because probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the decision-making process was fairly straightforward in most cases, based on the testimony presented by witnesses and the way the law or charge is defined in each case. We did not have to bear the burden of convicting someone of a felony crime, a task left to the trial jury or the judge in the next phase of the case.
Most days on the Grand Jury were busy and fast-paced. We sometimes had more than 15 cases scheduled in a day, each one requiring presentation of evidence, instructions from the prosecutor, and time for deliberation. All charges brought to us were felony charges. Some cases were difficult and emotionally draining to hear, like a child abuse case or a sexual assault or a murder, and I found myself taking the burden of these tragedies home with me at the end of the day. Other times, though, cases involved drug possession or firearm possession or shoplifting, crimes that negatively impact society in significant and complicated ways but that did not directly harm an individual, per se.
These cases opened my eyes to a lot of the issues that exist in our community, both on individual and societal levels, and I often asked myself how often are our actions determined by our circumstances, and how much is choice? When the options are impossible, do people even have a choice? When individuals are victims, or when they are faced with desperate circumstances, or when they don't have access to the resources required for basic human needs, people are led to commit crimes. I felt helpless at times as a juror. While fulfilling my civic duty, I didn't actually feel like I was helping anyone. I wasn't part of the solution to society's issues. In most cases, I didn't have any contact with either the victim or the target. And in many cases, there are third parties who should take some of the responsibility for the crime that was committed and the circumstances presented.
Serving on jury duty also highlighted the importance of separating a person's character from his or her actions. Good people can commit crimes, and bad people are often innocent. There's a human urge to want to put people into boxes or categories and to make generalizations about individuals. This is how we make sense of the world, but also subjects us to stereotypes and confirmation bias. Jurors are not a blank slate, but ultimately bring their own perspectives, experiences, and biases, and it's important to be mindful of assumptions and not project our own experiences onto victims, witnesses, or targets.
I'm thankful to have had this opportunity and I think it's a beneficial part of the community for everyone to experience. I learned a lot about aspects of my community that I never encountered before and I have a deeper understanding of individuals who lead lives different than my own. The challenge I am faced with now is incorporating what I learned into my interactions with people at work and in the community.
First of all, if you don't know the difference between a Grand Jury and a Trial Jury (which I did not, prior to this experience), a Grand Jury is responsible for establishing probable cause, which then leads to an indictment. Probable cause does not mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt - it just means that there is enough evidence to suggest that a crime was committed and that the "target" (not yet labeled a "defendant") committed the offense. The Grand Jury does not determine innocence or guilt, and the decision does not need to be unanimous. Because of this, I found that we as jurors were often making decisions independently, based on the evidence presented, because there was no need to try to convince other jurors to vote a certain way. While we had to reach a decision about the indictment, we did not necessarily need to collaborate or be in full agreement, which I think is one aspect of the Grand Jury that is probably easier than serving on a trial jury. Additionally, because probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the decision-making process was fairly straightforward in most cases, based on the testimony presented by witnesses and the way the law or charge is defined in each case. We did not have to bear the burden of convicting someone of a felony crime, a task left to the trial jury or the judge in the next phase of the case.
Most days on the Grand Jury were busy and fast-paced. We sometimes had more than 15 cases scheduled in a day, each one requiring presentation of evidence, instructions from the prosecutor, and time for deliberation. All charges brought to us were felony charges. Some cases were difficult and emotionally draining to hear, like a child abuse case or a sexual assault or a murder, and I found myself taking the burden of these tragedies home with me at the end of the day. Other times, though, cases involved drug possession or firearm possession or shoplifting, crimes that negatively impact society in significant and complicated ways but that did not directly harm an individual, per se.
These cases opened my eyes to a lot of the issues that exist in our community, both on individual and societal levels, and I often asked myself how often are our actions determined by our circumstances, and how much is choice? When the options are impossible, do people even have a choice? When individuals are victims, or when they are faced with desperate circumstances, or when they don't have access to the resources required for basic human needs, people are led to commit crimes. I felt helpless at times as a juror. While fulfilling my civic duty, I didn't actually feel like I was helping anyone. I wasn't part of the solution to society's issues. In most cases, I didn't have any contact with either the victim or the target. And in many cases, there are third parties who should take some of the responsibility for the crime that was committed and the circumstances presented.
Serving on jury duty also highlighted the importance of separating a person's character from his or her actions. Good people can commit crimes, and bad people are often innocent. There's a human urge to want to put people into boxes or categories and to make generalizations about individuals. This is how we make sense of the world, but also subjects us to stereotypes and confirmation bias. Jurors are not a blank slate, but ultimately bring their own perspectives, experiences, and biases, and it's important to be mindful of assumptions and not project our own experiences onto victims, witnesses, or targets.
I'm thankful to have had this opportunity and I think it's a beneficial part of the community for everyone to experience. I learned a lot about aspects of my community that I never encountered before and I have a deeper understanding of individuals who lead lives different than my own. The challenge I am faced with now is incorporating what I learned into my interactions with people at work and in the community.
Comments
Post a Comment