Our Legal System Analysis

The Essence of Our Legal System
Spending time in the courtroom is definitely not like spending time in front of the television set watching Law and Order. In fact, the two are really nothing alike. A room full of observers and people invested in the case usually does not present itself in the actual courtroom. The attorneys are not amazing orators who know just what to say to change the entire outcome of the case. Media personnel are no where to be found. Sometimes one may even think that the courtrooms are deserted historical sights only open for special occasions. All of these things came as quite a shock to me when I spent my time in the courts. At times my experience was interesting and fun, but more often it was boring and not
so much fun. Despite all of the unexpected, one aspect of the courtroom was very similar to what I see on television: the jury. The jury was the only thing I could look to for comfort in my unfamiliar and unforeseen courtroom experience. The juries in the county courts were exactly like the ones in Law and Order. They sat in the corner quietly and got up and walked out when they were dismissed. They came back and sat in their seats when the proceedings started again, and they only spoke when they were spoken to. They were very respectful to the judge, the courtroom and the entire system. The jury is that special aspect of the courtroom that makes it something safe and familiar. It is important to incorporate the jury in analyzing the legal system by looking at its role in the system and other social and psychological aspects of the jury.
The jury would really be an unusual thing if it was brought into every day American society. Think of what it actually does. It is a group of people who basically has to sit there, listen to an argument and not put any input in during the argument. Very few people in the United States today would be able to sit and listen to a dispute for hours without giving their own advice to each of the parties. It is a part of our American culture. We like to be involved, and we like others to know what we think. Being on jury duty is probably a challenge for many since it is nothing like what they have ever had to do in life. The fact that the jury is passive in legal proceedings is the basis for other problems with the jury system. The jury cannot say a word, cannot ask any questions, but they are the individuals making the decision. The people who do not have any input in the final decision are the ones who ask the questions and find information. In A Trial by Jury, D. Graham Burnett asks "How did it happen…that a practice of truth-seeking had evolved to divide the job up in all these curious ways? The asking of questions was reserved to those who would play no role in judging the answers, while we, the jury, who were supposed to figure out what had gone on, had to remain absolutely silent" (37). However, I think the problem and the discrepancy lies in the fact that the jury usually thinks that the goal of the proceedings is to find the truth, but the goal is actually to "resolve disputes on the basis of information provided by contending parties during formal proceedings" (Adversary System 1). If this primary goal was conveyed to the jury and the larger public, there might be less criticism of our current adversary system. People would understand what their real jobs were when acting as jurors. Finding the truth would certainly help in resolving disputes, but it would only be an aide, not an aim.
Thus, if the job of the jury is to resolve disputes, how do they go about such a difficult task with the resources they are given—their ears, and sometimes a notebook and a pencil. It is hard to see how such an important and far reaching decision only allows these few things. Sometimes, even ears fail us, and those are basically all that the jury has to rely on. The jury and their responsibility relies more on instinct, personal feelings, and the persuasiveness of other juries than anything else. It is kind of hard to believe that a man could live or die based on those easily changeable elements. But, that is how the system works and the views of the jury have been more often correct than not. There are mistakes, but there will always be mistakes, and we cannot let a few failures get in the way of the many successes. And we cannot blame the inefficiency of the jury for those mistakes either.
Moreover, another question that comes up when analyzing the jury is how and why the individual members are chosen by the attorneys. This procedure took up a significant portion of my observation time. It was interesting to see what kind of questions the attorneys asked the potential jurors and how they fit into the trial once more of the details were divulged. Lawyers have to think of every single bias that could come into the final decision, so at times the questions get quite interesting and funny. "Has anyone ever heard of a syrup bottle exploding at a restaurant?" was one of the more amusing questions in my courtroom experience. When I first came in to the courts, I thought that this sort of questioning would take away and detract from choosing good members for the jury. I thought that the question procedure was an easy way for potential jurors to work their way out of their jury responsibilities. To my surprise, it did not work in such a manner. The potential jurors all seemed to be very honest and genuine when answering questions. None of them seemed to be orchestrating peculiar and unfavorable responses in order to wiggle their way out of jury service. They may not have wanted to be there—seen by their happiness when they were not chosen for the jury—but while they were in the courtroom, the jurors were as professional and respectful as they could be. A sense of duty could be seen on their faces and in their demeanors—duty to the defense, duty to the plaintiff, duty to the judge, and most importantly, duty to the system.
It is extremely reassuring to see that the citizens of the United States possess so much respect for their legal system and the significance of their duty as jurors. This tells me that our system works. Something has to work for most people to hold it in such hard regards. Usually when things are not functioning properly, individuals lose respect for that specific thing. An example of this can be seen in the Bush administration. The loss of respect for the Bush administration is seen in the dismal approval ratings due to things not working and going as they should. In the legal system, most complaints come from specific individual problems and disappointments with the system, but not with the system as a whole. Even during jury selection when it was evident that the potential juror may have felt as if he had been wronged by the legal system in a previous circumstance, that same juror usually agreed that that situation would not cause him to bring bias into the issue at hand. The fact that the people of America hold the legal system in such high esteem gives the entire system so much power.
The power that the legal system holds comes directly from potential jurors, directly from the citizens of the United States.
This power belongs to the state, an issue that is explored in A Trial by Jury. So, at this point there is a dilemma in the analysis of the jury's respect for the system. Why does the system work? Why does the jury hold the system in high esteem? Does this respect come from the fact that the system is so powerful or is this a genuine respect for the quality of the U.S. legal system? Do jurors come in, tell the truth and act professional because they are afraid what they state may do them if they do not? Or, do jurors act in such a way because they value the justice that the system aims to deliver? In A Trial by Jury, Burnett articulates that "in the end there was, simply, the final power of the state. There was always this. This was a power even more terrifying, in a way, than a man with a knife in a closed room" (161). This unchecked power—is this what makes our legal system legitimate? Is this what causes citizens to acquiesce to the procedures? If that power creates jurors who choose to do the best job with the information provided to them, is it worth it? Is it worth having people who are scared making things function properly? I really do not know at this point. At this point, I would rather believe that the system works because it is a system that tries its best to deliver justice and that the jury respects that goal. Hopefully, the
jury likes the fact that justice is being served and responds with their commitment to jury service. But, who knows the reasons backing the attitude of the jury, except the jury itself.
Who knows any significant information about the jury and their deliberations, except for the jury itself? This is a much easier question than the ones presented above. No one else knows anything else about what goes on behind the closed doors of the jury room. There is no tape recorder, video recorder, or court reporter in the room recording all of the statements and discussions floating throughout the jury room. The people of the jury could spend seventy percent of their time talking about what was on last night's episode of Law and Order, and no one would ever know. So, what makes the jury so inclined to meet a fair and just decision in a timely matter? Well, part of the reason is because they have to change their entire schedules around in order to serve on the jury panel. They have to take off of work, lose quality time with their children, and totally switch their lives around for an unknown amount of time. But besides that, why doesn't the jury spend its time talking about current events and interesting stories? I think that it is because the jury really does care about justice being served. If they were in the position of the defense or the plaintiff, they would want the people that walk behind closed doors to do the best job possible in making a fair and just decision for their case. So, when a juror walks behind those doors, he cannot help but feel the need to deliver the same courtesy that he would want delivered to him if he was in the other individual's shoes. The jurors know the weight that their decision can carry, and they work together to make sure that in the end the weight of the decision is distributed in the correct way and in the correct amounts.
The jury has to overcome so many obstacles when in the deliberation room, but working together with a group of people that they have never met before probably surpassed many of the others.
Once again, I have to blame the success of the collaboration of twelve random individuals on the sense of duty that overcomes these ordinary people. I feel as if the jurors will overcome any obstacle given to them in order to resolve the dispute that is put in front of them. This commitment to resolving the dispute is seen by the relatively low hung jury rates. These rates are usually no greater than 10 percent and are many times much lower than that. In my opinion, this indicates the jury's commitment to their job. They commit to resolving the dispute, but only when an answer to the dispute can be
found.
The commitment of the jury can be seen in so many aspects of the proceedings. It can be seen in the jurors genuine answers to the questions of the attorneys, in their punctuality, in the sense of duty on their faces, and in the fact that they are rarely seen dozing off in the jury box. The bailiff falls asleep more often the jury members do. Depending on the way one analyzes it, it can be difficult or it can be very easy to see why the jury behaves in the way it does. I feel like the best and easiest reason to accept for the jury's behavior is the jury's desire to find justice. They want to find justice for the parties involved, but they also want to find justice for themselves. If the jury can make fair and just decision, they can put more faith in the system because they made it work. If the juror has faith in the system, it is easier to give the temporary duty of finding justice to the legal system. And the temporary nature of that justice is something that needs to be reminded to everyone. In A Trial by Jury, it makes it easier for all of the jury to make a decision once Dean asserts that "Justice belongs to God; men only have the law. Justice is perfect, but the law can only be careful" (138). So, in the end, this temporary justice is only the law being applied in the most careful manner possible by a certain body of jurors.
The jury is the essence of the legal system of the United States of America. It is what has reassured me about the legal system of the United States of America. Without the jury, I do not feel that the legal system would be as effective. The jury is the only place one can look to when all other aspects of the system do not seem to be fulfilling their expectations. This is alright for now, but I never want to see the day when juries are no longer part of court proceedings. Based on my observations, the main reason our system works is because of trust. Without trust in the system, the jury would not feel the same obligation to the system and things could and probably would quickly fall apart. We, as citizens, and as potential jurors and potential litigants, have to trust the system for it to work. Why we trust it is not so much important. It does not matter if we trust it because of fear or duty or faith. What matters is that we do trust our legal system, and in the end that gives it the real power to govern legal issues in our country.