Trial by Impartial Jury: Part II

Celebration of the Anniversary of the signing of the U.S. constitution:

Words of wisdom from the author

Trial by an impartial jury.

PART II

Alas the founding fathers did reconcile the prejudice, passions, local interests and selfish views that we all have. We’re human, not infallible. I mention this because we all must get along and work out our prejudices, passions, local interest and selfish views. If they did it then why can’t we do it now? And this reconciliation among 12 strangers is what every jury must accomplish in every case in order to render a fair and just verdict.

What a difficult, challenging task we assign them. The jurors are hard working, dedicated and true-hearted in their determination of what is justice in each case they hear and are the best example of the people checking and balancing their government. It’s up to the jury to decide if the government’s action taken, including arrest and incarceration of a fellow citizen is justified under the circumstances.

The Trayvon Martin Case

1.       The jury did their job and it did so by considering both the evidence and the legal instruction from the court. Reminder: the presumption is not guilty unless  and until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution who bears this lofty burden in all criminal cases.

2.       The jury is the ultimate check and balance on government action taken. It’s not we full-time professionals who make the decision but the citizens who are given the impactful task. I get goose bumps every time I speak to jurors after their verdict. They are called in from their busy lives to complete the almost impossible task of how to do justice.

3.       Regardless of whether the stand-your-ground law may or may not have an impact on this case, the issue has now been raised and debated and must be further addressed. For 400 years the castle doctrine has been law. Eight years ago Florida adopted a new stand-your-ground statute. 20 other states have since done the same.

                                                   Important questions to answer:
Is this good for society? We’ve got to review our work and see if that law has been a mistake or at least is in need of renovation (or overhaul). We must revisit and debate the concept of retreating to the wall if you are able to safely do so. This was always required, except in your home (castle). We had this duty to retreat to avoid a deadly encounter. If we for some reason now encourage a deadly encounter, is this what is best for society? Has this change resulted in some more violent behavior and the increase in gun purchases? The right of self defense conceived and developed under the castle doctrine was in place as the law for the last 400 years. Hasn’t it evolved sufficiently in four centuries to make stand your grand laws not necessary?

4.       Finally and most importantly shouldn’t we seize this opportunity to take a probing view of our criminal justice system? This has been called for by many citizen groups in recent years and in fact has actually been done.

This is what they Evangelical Lutheran Church of America did for the last five years and now demands reform in the criminal justice system. Shouldn’t we seize this opportunity to intelligently discuss these issues today?

Nearly all the experts agree that mandatory minimum sentences should be eliminated but politicians are afraid to do so because of being voted out of office for being labeled soft on crime. I firmly believe that sentencing discretion has been taken from the judiciary and replaced by the prosecution offering guilty plea bargains that are too often being accepted by the defendant solely to avoid the risk of a mandated longer sentence being imposed by the prosecutor with the sentencing judge having no discretion!

I also call for the abolishment of sentencing commissions because the sentence is determined by point values and the prosecution rarely will go below the recommended guideline ranges because it’s easier and more popular to simply follow the recommendation. So who truly now does the sentencing?  The PA Commission on Sentencing boasts that we judges in Pennsylvania follow these recommendations in 90% of the cases. I repeat, who is doing the sentencing? Shouldn’t it be returned by the prosecutor and the sentencing commission to the judges who were elected to do that job?

All across this great country, sentencing discretion, harsh mandated sentences, racial and class issues, overcrowding of prisons by being the highest incarcerating country in the world and the high costs of fighting these wars on drugs must be studied by the citizens.

Out of such discussion comes reform.

Next week: Who really does the sentencing in Pennsylvania?