I don't believe this. A murder case here in Winston-Salem has ended in a mistrial because "one juror would not budge from her position that even though the defendant was guilty, she would not agree to a guilty verdict because it would send him to prison for life."
At the moment, I'm involved in a citizen group that wants to reform our local justice system, and we're frequently met with skepticism from people who insist that there's nothing wrong with our methods of law 'n order. So, Juror #9, while I think you're a freaking idiot.......thanks, I guess? For proving our point? (Thus ends my attempt to find a silver lining in this situation.)
Here's the thing: when you're on a jury, you take an oath to base your decisions on the law, not on your personal opinions or intuitions. You sure as hell don't base something as serious as a murder verdict on whether you felt like you got a "spark" from the guy's momma's testimony. If this juror felt on principle that she could not send a man to jail for life, then she had a legal and moral obligation to say so during the selection process. For instance, I'm opposed to the death penalty. If I'm ever called to jury duty where the death penalty is on the table, I'll have to make clear that I could not apply the law in that situation. And then I would be sent home.
But wait, says the radical activist. You have a golden opportunity to get onto the jury and ensure that the death penalty/life sentence won't be applied - shouldn't you engage in this little bit of civil disobedience? I say no. I say, if you feel that something in the law is wrong, have the courage to say so in front of a courtroom full of people, lobby your elected officials, hell, stand on the sidewalk waving a protest sign. But don't waste public time and money and drag a crime victim's family through hell to prove your little point.
I don't actually think that Juror #9 is an anti-felony murder statute activist. I think she's an imbecile. Which begs the question - how did she get on a jury in the first place? Isn't there some sort of screening process that covers basic reading comprehension or - I dunno - non-stupidity? I want everyone in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County to read this article - twice. And then, the next time you get the urge to shrug off Daryl Hunt's 20-year "oops" or the "procedural errors" in Kalvin Michael Smith's case and insist that it's impossible for innocent men to be sent to prison or guilty men set free, I want you to read it again. And then tell yourself there's nothing wrong with the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment