If the world thought you were you guilty, how would you ever clear your name? If individual after individual pointed to you as the chief architect of a conspiracy you knew nothing about, how do you prove you’re not involved? What if it’s not just you – an individual – but everyone who looks like you, follows your way of life who is accused? How do you prove that negative?
Having participated in a jury trial this year, I now understand the value of the American justice system more clearly. Now, there is still corruption – if there are humans present in any system, the very good and the very bad will both be present. As a jurist, however, I felt that the system worked, essentially, because I was the system – all of the jurors were the system.
In this one criminal trial (which went all the way to a verdict), I went through the entire process from jury selection to jury deliberation. Having the weight and burden of proof upon the prosecution is, in my opinion, essential to offering any kind of justice to the accused. In the end, the defendant was found innocent on some counts, guilty on others. It wasn’t an hours long process to decide, either. Just interpretation of the law and being able to imagine more than once circumstance (other than evil intent) that led to the defendant being where he was in the situation where he was found.
Sometimes, being able to imagine alternative, but plausible, narratives to those offered by either the prosecution or the defense is a useful component of discerning justice and disabusing oneself of the images both parties have tried to create. It’s not about making up a story, but simply realizing there are other alternatives than the two stories being presented. It’s about understanding that those who have “fallen” deserve the best efforts of those who decide their fate – who look at the decisions jurists make as accountable not to a judge or a lawyer, but to the supreme authority who will one day judge them.
Also, jury selection, in our trial, seemed to get it right. Those who really didn’t want to be there or had hardships were excused. More importantly, those who really wanted to be in a jury trial were also dismissed – it wasn’t LA Law, Night Court, or another show off of TV. A man’s life and livelihood was at stake. Only those who were open to withhold their judgment and put aside their bias and prejudices were allowed into the jury room. And although there was a wide mix of backgrounds and professions, I believe the defendant got our best efforts.
When we see stories presented in our press and popular media about the wrongdoings of anyone, we should remember that journalism in our society serves at its best to inform, but at is basest, it serves as mere entertainment. News personalities and organizations do not have a single intent, as one would hope a jurist maintains. The news room makes a poor court room. News organizations must answer to the need to draw in advertisers to pay their bills. They must lure the advertisers with viewers. They must lure the viewers with sensational and highly interesting stories, even if – to some part – they are fiction. Those who are proficient know how to insinuate and editorialize to create that interest without actually stepping into the realm of blatant falsehood. So long as two masters are served – journalistic integrity and the entertainment business – neither one can be served perfectly.
Sometimes, I believe, we try cases in the court of popular opinion, fed by the news media. How fortunate a defendant is if he or she is not “important enough” to merit the attention of the media. It may be possible, then, to get a fair hearing in court. There seems to me no way that someone whose story has been popularized and editorialized by our modern day news media can ever receive justice. Even if the courtroom does offer them a just trial, there are no real appeals to the news media – they’ve moved onto the next story.
Just things to think about, when considering “The Fallen.”
JTL