As we approach election season and participation in one of our great civic duties, I am prompted to reflect on another civic duty, jury duty to be precise. Most people view this as an imposition. Practically speaking, I’m inclined to agree. But I find that when I actually end up going, not only do I enjoy myself, I come away with my faith in America stronger than ever.
There’s a vast literature on juries and their role in a republican system. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote extensively on it, for example. But the aspects that stands out for me personally are the diverse slice of the community you end up cooling your heels with all day and the relationships that develop with them.
I’ve been on jury duty in places ranging from Bloomington to Chicago. I’ve been in jury pools with truck drivers, preachers, country good-ol’-boys, students, black grandmothers, immigrant citizens, soccer moms, construction workers, and much, much more. I’m always amazed by all the types of people you serve with. People who live in the same city as me, but with whom I would rarely interact with. Like most people, I tend to stay in the same social circle of people who are broadly similar to me. I live in a very diverse neighborhood, but still my day to day interactions tend to be with people who have a not dissimilar profile in many respects.
Nevertheless, I find that despite all the different people who come together, in a group that would rarely if ever be assembled elsewhere, a type of rough camaraderie always develops. Nobody wants to be the schmuck stuck on the jury for a three week trial. And everybody knows that nobody wants it. It creates an instant commonality and bond between people, bringing them together. It shows me that we’re not all so different after all, despite how different we might seem.
What’s more, I find myself thinking that if I were ever to find myself on trial, these are people I believe would give me a fair shake. Like everyone, I curse the “runaway juries” who award millions to people who spill coffee on themselves. But with so many trials out there, clearly this must be the exception. I’ve never seen any reason to believe that the groups of people I’ve sat with on jury duty would be anything other than a fine group of people to judge a case.
So in a sense I think that in addition to the purely practical aspects of jury duty, there’s a function of community building as well, of bringing together everyone for a shared experience where there is actually lots of personal interaction. That’s what makes it different from say a sporting event. We can all cheer for the same team, but does that mean anything if we never talk to each other? But when 50 of you are stuck in a room all day with nothing better to do but talk, you get a different quality of experience.
That’s why I think jury duty is so important. It creates bonds across the diverse groups of our community, reinforces everything that we have in common, and gives us reasons to have faith in the quality of the people in our city. In an era where cities are more diverse than ever, and indeed where attracting diverse talent is key to creating civic success, institutions like jury duty that serve as “civic glue” are more important than ever.
Interesting Post. You have often talk about how many Hoosiers have a negative conception about the city and state.
If we had more opportunities for a cross section of Hoosiers to meet and (I hate to use this word for fear of being accused of boosterism) celebrate/recognize our diversity and commonality, it might just lead to a greater sense of pride in our city and our region.
But then I’m also a hopeless optimist!
The Urbanophile says
Thanks for the comment.
I agree that if you took a slice of Hoosiers and put them on jury duty, they might not all be best buddies, but I think your opinion of everyone coming out would be higher than going in. The very setting lends itself to an “us against the machine” mentality that creates commonality that you might not otherwise get in another setting.
I tend to agree mostly with this statement and article, however. I believe the Jury system does not necessarily reflect as justic served. Take for example an important trial where you have a jury that deliberates, and continues to deliberate because you have 3 out of maybe 12 people who think they are going down the wrong path. The wrong path may be just assigning guilt or a verdict just to get the heck out of the trial that has been going on a week. Some of this is because they are losing pay, wanting to be with family, no longer have to stay in a hotel or get back to their jobs. this type of system of picking random people is burdensome and can lend itself to not really following through on making sure justics is served. The end result of this scenario is those few people who think the person may be innocent or don’t think a guilty verdict should be handed down – end up changing their minds with those on the bandwagon to avoid a hung jury or to avoid having to be the only guy that keeps people from their families and jobs. This is where I think the Jury pool is flawed.
So few people have even a remote idea of what the law is all about and how to crasp the vast legal system in this country (basically it’s so complicated and over their heads) that to have a jury trial in this day in age is a disservice to any kind of litgation or criminal trial.
I work in a law firm and I see it every day. Going to a jury trial is about the last thing you ever want to do to get justice served.