Jury Selection
Sep. 1st, 2004 03:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theoriginalblurkerA few days ago, a 10-year old child shot and killed his father during a custody visit. This is a horrible and tragic event. But I want to talk about jury selection.
I have already confessed my sin of listening to conservative talk radio. Well, this week was no different. Several of the local hosts spent time, a lot of time, on this issue. They questioned whether a 10-year old child would know the consequences of his actions. They discussed what might happen if the boy is found guilty of this crime. There was a lot of passionate discussion with the callers. I was surprised at what I heard.
Most of the callers fell into one of two camps, the "string him up" camp, and the "his father probably deserved it" camp. Keep in mind that no one was asking about this. The questions being asked were mostly based around the mental capacity of a 10-year old. People had clearly already made up their minds about his guilt or innocence, based solely on about three sentences of data. At the time, no one knew the background. No one knew why the child did it. No one knew the relationship between the parents, other than the fact that they had been divorced. Still, the majority of people were calling in talking about how:
Now, either of these statements could be true. I don't know. And I think that's my point. I DON'T KNOW. And neither do these callers. How can they just automatically decide the right course of action without hearing the evidence? Without even getting a statement from the child? What is wrong with these people? And, seeing that this manner of decision making encompassed the vast majority of the audience (I actually heard one caller say that he couldn't decide without hearing what really happened), how can Houston expect to ever seat an impartial jury?
I have already confessed my sin of listening to conservative talk radio. Well, this week was no different. Several of the local hosts spent time, a lot of time, on this issue. They questioned whether a 10-year old child would know the consequences of his actions. They discussed what might happen if the boy is found guilty of this crime. There was a lot of passionate discussion with the callers. I was surprised at what I heard.
Most of the callers fell into one of two camps, the "string him up" camp, and the "his father probably deserved it" camp. Keep in mind that no one was asking about this. The questions being asked were mostly based around the mental capacity of a 10-year old. People had clearly already made up their minds about his guilt or innocence, based solely on about three sentences of data. At the time, no one knew the background. No one knew why the child did it. No one knew the relationship between the parents, other than the fact that they had been divorced. Still, the majority of people were calling in talking about how:
(1) "We should make an example of this kid. These kids grow up to be the gang-member, drive-by shooter, drug dealers of tomorrow!"
(2) " This poor child was probably abused! He only did it because there was no other way to stop the abuse!"
Now, either of these statements could be true. I don't know. And I think that's my point. I DON'T KNOW. And neither do these callers. How can they just automatically decide the right course of action without hearing the evidence? Without even getting a statement from the child? What is wrong with these people? And, seeing that this manner of decision making encompassed the vast majority of the audience (I actually heard one caller say that he couldn't decide without hearing what really happened), how can Houston expect to ever seat an impartial jury?
