After September 11, 2001 Americans almost universally proclaimed New York City firefighters, policemen, and even the Mayor as flawless heroes. Some even went as far as to call all firefighters and policemen heroes. Granted it was an emotional time, and I was willing to forgo the irrationality of a proclamation of heroism based solely on the performance of a job that one receives a paycheck for, but I can no longer hold my tongue as American soldiers are now proclaimed “heroes” as well.
Even Looking beyond the 15 civilians massacred at Haditha, the torture of prisoners at Abu-Ghraib, and the “untold thousands of Iraqi civilians [that]have been killed by US forces in conditions considered insufficiently atrocious to be worthy of investigation,” (Younge) American soldiers do not qualify.
According to the Wikipedia online dictionary, “Typically the willingness to sacrifice the self for the greater good is seen as the most important defining characteristic of a hero.” After looking through several different dictionary definitions I believe the following could be an acceptable universal definition of a hero: a person who shows great courage in an effort to help others regardless of the personal risk. While some soldiers may fit the criteria, they do not fit it in any greater abundance than the general population, and by no means can we bestow the title of hero on all American soldiers.
While fighting to defend one’s homeland may be heroic, blindly signing up in one of the most militarily aggressive nations in history is not. According to most definitions of heroism, the person must be sacrificing himself/herself for the greater good, but nearly the entire world has condemned the Iraq War. The pretext for invasion, Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, has been proven to be a lie. The Americans have caused more suffering to “liberate” the Iraqi people than anything they endured under Saddam. And now, with a raging civil war, and the impending withdrawal of US forces, it appears to be only the beginning for the Iraqi people, with no signs of the “freedom” America had promised them in sight. The net outcome will be chaos in Iraq, millions dead, trillions of dollars wasted, a huge refugee problem, ethnic cleansing between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd, and a greater world terrorist problem.
The war is definitely not for the greater good, but can a soldiers’ ignorance of the justification of a conflict a reasonable defense? Do American soldier’s “noble” intentions to serve their country automatically make them heroes? If so, then shouldn’t soldiers who fought for Germany in WWII, that did not know about the genocide, and truly believed they were fighting for their homeland’s “security” be deemed heroes as well? Or, how about the Al-Qaeda soldier who believes in the justification of his cause? There should be no double standard for Americans. Either a belief in the justification of a country’s cause is sufficient, or the soldier should be held accountable for the net outcome of the morality of the actions of their nation or group. If it’s the former then Al-Qaeda and Nazi soldiers are heroes as well.
I tend to agree with latter; even in an American criminal court one can not use ignorance of the law as a defense. If soldiers are held to the same standards as any other citizen then they are individually culpable for their participation in their groups/countries actions; and therefore German soldiers, Al-Qaeda, and American soldiers should all be deemed terrorists.
American’s are probably reeling back in their chairs right now thinking, Al-Qaeda soldiers signed up with the intent to commit atrocities and therefore they can not be deemed heroes, but both soldiers signed up believing their cause was just, and both groups/nations committed atrocities. The Al-Qaeda soldier can not know that blowing up a building for his religion is wrong, when he has been told throughout his life by every respected individual in his society that it’s right. American soldiers obviously don’t know it’s wrong to press a button that will drop a bomb killing Iraqi freedom fighters and civilians because their government has told them it’s right. The outcome is the same, people die and things get destroyed.
The next piece of the criteria American soldiers must possess to be called heroes is selflessness. Are they really “risking their lives for other American’s freedom?” I have to wonder how an American killing innocent Iraqis will increase anyone’s freedom. Even if terrorists planted 10 nuclear bombs in the largest U.S. cities, the constitution would not be changed. People would be dead, but Americans would be living under the same laws. They would have the same shattered bill of rights.
If anything American soldiers’ actions have put American’s freedom into the line of fire. The Iraq war has created more terrorists recruits, increased terrorist funding, and therefore increased the threat of future terrorist attacks, which then allows President Bush to use that fear to steal more freedom from the American population via legislation like the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts.
Instead of fighting inhumane, illegal wars, United States soldiers should be upholding their oath to defend the Constitution, even if that means standing up to President Bush for his treasonous actions. At this point it may even be better for the average American’s freedom if another country invaded the US. With draconian laws, a higher percentage of the American population under some form of correctional supervision than any other country in the world, and a non-existent bill of rights, an invading country may bring more freedom with it. After all the United States has ranked fairly lowly in freedom of the press and other human rights world rankings, and that was prior to the patriot and military commissions acts, which deprived Americans of any right to privacy. Although highly improbable, if the Netherlands invaded the US today, they would actually be significantly freer than they are today.
Looking beyond all of the propaganda and illusions, one must see that soldiering is not a heroic profession. These people are getting paid to do a job, and one that has done significant harm to humanity at that. Garbage men, janitors, teachers, and many others are paid to do jobs as well. What differentiates these people from an American soldier in Iraq is that they actually do something productive. One thing we know for sure is that soldiers aren’t getting paid for their contribution to humanity.
Although governments have glorified the honor and heroism in killing for one’s country it is no different than killing for any other reason. It may even be worse. Usually when a person kills another it’s for a rational reason like the other guy was sleeping with his wife, for monetary reasons, or maybe the other person just needed killing. When one kills for a country they get no personal reward, and they may not even know if they’re on the right side of things. In a war one has no idea if they’re killing a great man or a bad one. They may be killing a person who won the Nobel peace prize. At least in common murder one usually knows who they’re killing and why. When one goes to a criminal court no one really cares if they had a good reason to kill the other person. They can get a lesser charge for it, but whether its murder 1, murder 2, or murder 3, they still call it murder.
Maybe it’s the inherent danger that makes people think of soldiers as heroes. Of course that very danger is what they are getting paid for isn’t it? That is the job description. For example, what would happen if firefighters only got paid to put out fires that posed no risk to their lives or if policemen only had to catch the non-dangerous criminals?
Though government, the press, and soldiers themselves continue play up this image of sacrifice and personal risk to bolster their image, the truth is, most of our current military in Iraq signed up well before the war, in pursuit of safe positions in the National Guard or the Reserves. I personally witnessed my military recruiters tell my friends and myself that we would never be called to war if we signed up in the guard or reserves. They told us that wars were fought with technology and not people nowadays. They told us that the most we would have to do is press a button to drop a bomb on someone. Even now, post Iraq war, CNN has caught recruiters lying to kids about the war being over and they won’t have to go if they sign up. So, if one signs up not despite the danger, but because they don’t feel there is any danger then they are not really consciously taking a risk. When the war comes, they have no choice, either they fight, thereby “taking a risk” or they are court-martialed for cowardice, and possibly shot, or at the least discharged and forever disgraced back home. That’s not much of a risk. In fact, the real risk would be doing the honorable thing and refusing to fight in an illegal war. Going to Iraq is the easy way out. In Iraq they face the 10% chance they will be wounded or killed, but by acting morally they face a much greater chance of facing a court-martial and the brig.
If it’s not the danger then maybe it’s their self-less motivation that we admire, but do soldiers really enlist for selfless reasons? While we like to pretend that the pay does not motivate a soldier to enlist, or a fireman to apply, that would be fairly naive. There’s a reason the United States military has to offer a free education and many other benefits to get soldiers to sign up. If people were enlisting for patriotic reasons alone, recruiters would not have to sell the economic benefits. In fact, recruiters shouldn’t have to sell it at all. When we add up all of their pay including: tuition, medical benefits, retirement benefits, housing, hazardous duty pay, etc… they are making a very nice living. With all of the added wartime pay, a brand new enlistee can make as much as $50,000 a year, tax free. That’s far more than other 18-22 year olds would make with similar education and experience.
So what are they expected to do for that money? Their only job is to train to fight, and then fight when necessary. Should they be praised then for doing what they are paid to do? For example, what would you think of a person who signs on as a crab fisherman; which by the way is actually more dangerous than enlisting in the military during peacetime, and didn’t fish? The public would think they are worthless, and as well they should. What would you think of that same fisherman that took the job, got paid and fished? That would be expected, just as fighting is expected for a soldier. There is nothing heroic about doing a job that one is paid to do. If one doesn’t do it they are derelict in their duties, and if one does it, it’s not heroic, but simply what they have been paid to do. In this case the fisherman has actually done more for his country than the soldier. He is providing food for his country men and some economic benefit as well. The soldier in Iraq on the other hand is busy destroying things and killing people, while hurting our freedom.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Blind Faith?
The foundation for organized religion is faith, but does “god” really value that virtue? Would a “god” need people to have faith in him/her? And why is it more important for people to have faith now, than those who lived in the time of Jesus and Moses, who were afforded miracles as evidence?
Let us start with the first two questions, why would an all knowing, all powerful “god” need lowly human beings to have faith that he/she exists. Is blind belief really a virtue? That quality certainly does not a better human make. The ability to question commonly held conceptions has lead man to many of our greatest discoveries. What if Columbus would have continued to believe the world was flat, or if the Wright brothers would have held the common belief that man’s flight was impossible? Or if people still believed in the theory of divine rule, we would be ruled by kings and tyrants today. I could go on, but let’s just say that the ability to question and use one’s reason to combat previously held myths and beliefs is a sign of intelligence, and human progress.
The alternative, blindly believing in organized religions, governments, and other ideological movements has been responsible for a great deal of tragedies throughout human history. Without the ability to abandon reason and our inquisitive spirit, Hitler would not have had any mindless minions to carry out his massacre. There would have been no Crusades, Inquisition, Witch hunts, or any of the other multiple genocides that human history has witnessed. So what is the intrinsic benefit of faith?
I can think of no benefit that a “god” would receive from belief in his/her existence. “God” certainly does not derive his/her power or prestige from that belief. We are talking about an all powerful “god” who created the world in 7 days and has no equal. Is it possible that having people believe in “god” based on no verifiable evidence would make him/her feel better about himself/herself? I don’t think anyone would believe that “god” could be that vain. That is if a “god” would really need people to worship him/her at all. I don’t think that I want to be in a heaven with a “god” who is so petty that he/she needs one day a week to be worshipped. If I were to sit here and tell all the people that I am greater than to worship me, the rest of the world would frown upon me and probably even call me an egotistical wretch. I also find it hard to believe that a “god” would be offended by a human taking his/her name in vain. These characteristics do not sound very “godly” to me. Humility is a trait that is almost universally admired, it would be sad if the greatest being who ever lived lacked such a simple characteristic. If any of those were the case though, “god” would surely give human beings undeniable proof to ensure the maximum amount of adulation.
Perhaps “god’s” benevolent plan was to make our lives more fulfilling by allowing us the opportunity to have faith in something. So we must then ask ourselves: would our lives be more fulfilling with faith, or with hard evidence of his/her existence? The beneficial aspect of faith in a “god” is two fold: first, people feel more secure with an omnipotent figure watching out for them and second, people are comforted with the thought of a higher plane of existence after they die. The only difference in a “god” that provides his followers with certainty of his existence and one who left it to uncertainty is that the “god” who gave his people certainty would have given his people a much more fulfilling life because they could be confident in those two statements, as opposed to the person who is solely reliant on faith must question the validity of those two statements thereby making him less secure and therefore less fulfilled. So we can be rest assured that “god” does not rely on faith to give humans a fulfilling life because there is a better alternative that he/she could easily create.
In reality though, a true “god” would frown upon people who rely solely on faith because it is an assault on reason, a virtue that “god” gave solely to man. Besides disposable thumbs, reason is one of the few things that “god” us which distinguishes, us from other animals. If the bible is in fact false, which scientific and historical evidence would lead us to believe, I would have to think that a “god”, if he/she does in fact exist, would be offended that we have discarded the gift of reason so readily in order to create and believe in fairy tales, which makes us feel better about the world.
Timing and Preferential Treatment
My next question is, why did “god” pick the time that he did to make his presence felt? There were civilized societies well before Jesus and Moses showed up. Why weren’t those people granted the opportunity of faith and worship? Are we to believe that after thousands of years of human existence “god” suddenly needed to be worshipped? Or was it because “god” believed that people were not behaving properly? If that were the case then we would expect an all powerful “god” to make a change that would have dramatically improved human behavior. Instead, as historians can show, people did not change their behavior whatsoever. If anything human behavior digressed because organized religion gave people a whole new ideal to fight over. Shouldn’t an all knowing “god” have been able to foresee that outcome, or at least rectify it once it began to happen.
If the people who lived prior to Jesus and Moses arrival knew of no divine law, were they held accountable for their sins? If so that would seem fairly inequitable to hold someone accountable for something they had no knowledge of, and if not it would be inequitable to allow them to sin and then ascend to heaven when the rest of us are held to certain standards. I also find it hard to believe that “god” allowed them to worship false “god’s” for thousands of years before stepping in, when we know that bothers him/her. He/She supposedly said, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Yet he/she can not expect people to know which god to worship before he shows up. And if he/she really cares if people are worshipping him/her as opposed to false gods then why not send messengers all over the world instead of only to Jerusalem and Egypt?
Are we to believe that Jesus wanted his word to be heard by everyone or just those in that spot at that time? If he wanted everyone to believe then why not write it down. Or for that matter why not just snap his fingers and create a book of his father’s word? Why was it necessary for him to speak only to a few followers, and then let people mistranslate it, change, and manipulate it for hundreds of years to follow until it was printed? And surely this all powerful “god” could see the future, so I suppose he wanted there to be several different versions of his word that people could not possibly have any clue to the validity of any particular one. And I also suppose he is quite pleased with people fighting over him. It does fit the pattern, anyone that would value being worshipped would also value the attention of being fought over.
Evidence, Faith, and Preferential Treatment
Did Moses and Jesus need to perform miracles to secure the respect and faith from their followers? Couldn’t Jesus have just shown up and relied on his follower’s faith to know he was the one true son of “god”? Why do people today have to rely on faith, when “god” accepted the fact that many others needed evidence to convince them. Are people held to a higher standard today than people who are considered saints by the Catholic Church? And why did “god” give some people direct evidence and not others? Why didn’t he show up in every city/country so everyone would have the equal opportunity to behold this evidence? Or show up every few generations so we don’t have to rely on an obviously fictitious work?
If having faith and adhering to religious laws gets one into heaven and ignoring those laws earns a person eternal damnation then it’s a huge advantage to have direct evidence of a “god.” It’s far easier to follow a divine code if you know for a fact it is a true code. Given that some were given this huge advantage while most were not we must believe that “god” loves some of us more than others, based on their place of their birth. For instance, why did “god” use his power during two particular generations and then withhold it forevermore? It doesn’t make sense for a “god” to give special powers to Moses to free the Jewish people from Egyptian “bondage,” (Some historians claim that the Jews living in Egypt were subject to the same pyramid duty as every other Egyptian, rather than slavery like the bible proclaims.) but then not help them during the Roman occupation, in which they fought many bloody wars for independence, or when Hitler was massacring them by the millions? Why step up during a minor period of suffering, when so many greater catastrophes have befallen the Jews, and many others?
Let us start with the first two questions, why would an all knowing, all powerful “god” need lowly human beings to have faith that he/she exists. Is blind belief really a virtue? That quality certainly does not a better human make. The ability to question commonly held conceptions has lead man to many of our greatest discoveries. What if Columbus would have continued to believe the world was flat, or if the Wright brothers would have held the common belief that man’s flight was impossible? Or if people still believed in the theory of divine rule, we would be ruled by kings and tyrants today. I could go on, but let’s just say that the ability to question and use one’s reason to combat previously held myths and beliefs is a sign of intelligence, and human progress.
The alternative, blindly believing in organized religions, governments, and other ideological movements has been responsible for a great deal of tragedies throughout human history. Without the ability to abandon reason and our inquisitive spirit, Hitler would not have had any mindless minions to carry out his massacre. There would have been no Crusades, Inquisition, Witch hunts, or any of the other multiple genocides that human history has witnessed. So what is the intrinsic benefit of faith?
I can think of no benefit that a “god” would receive from belief in his/her existence. “God” certainly does not derive his/her power or prestige from that belief. We are talking about an all powerful “god” who created the world in 7 days and has no equal. Is it possible that having people believe in “god” based on no verifiable evidence would make him/her feel better about himself/herself? I don’t think anyone would believe that “god” could be that vain. That is if a “god” would really need people to worship him/her at all. I don’t think that I want to be in a heaven with a “god” who is so petty that he/she needs one day a week to be worshipped. If I were to sit here and tell all the people that I am greater than to worship me, the rest of the world would frown upon me and probably even call me an egotistical wretch. I also find it hard to believe that a “god” would be offended by a human taking his/her name in vain. These characteristics do not sound very “godly” to me. Humility is a trait that is almost universally admired, it would be sad if the greatest being who ever lived lacked such a simple characteristic. If any of those were the case though, “god” would surely give human beings undeniable proof to ensure the maximum amount of adulation.
Perhaps “god’s” benevolent plan was to make our lives more fulfilling by allowing us the opportunity to have faith in something. So we must then ask ourselves: would our lives be more fulfilling with faith, or with hard evidence of his/her existence? The beneficial aspect of faith in a “god” is two fold: first, people feel more secure with an omnipotent figure watching out for them and second, people are comforted with the thought of a higher plane of existence after they die. The only difference in a “god” that provides his followers with certainty of his existence and one who left it to uncertainty is that the “god” who gave his people certainty would have given his people a much more fulfilling life because they could be confident in those two statements, as opposed to the person who is solely reliant on faith must question the validity of those two statements thereby making him less secure and therefore less fulfilled. So we can be rest assured that “god” does not rely on faith to give humans a fulfilling life because there is a better alternative that he/she could easily create.
In reality though, a true “god” would frown upon people who rely solely on faith because it is an assault on reason, a virtue that “god” gave solely to man. Besides disposable thumbs, reason is one of the few things that “god” us which distinguishes, us from other animals. If the bible is in fact false, which scientific and historical evidence would lead us to believe, I would have to think that a “god”, if he/she does in fact exist, would be offended that we have discarded the gift of reason so readily in order to create and believe in fairy tales, which makes us feel better about the world.
Timing and Preferential Treatment
My next question is, why did “god” pick the time that he did to make his presence felt? There were civilized societies well before Jesus and Moses showed up. Why weren’t those people granted the opportunity of faith and worship? Are we to believe that after thousands of years of human existence “god” suddenly needed to be worshipped? Or was it because “god” believed that people were not behaving properly? If that were the case then we would expect an all powerful “god” to make a change that would have dramatically improved human behavior. Instead, as historians can show, people did not change their behavior whatsoever. If anything human behavior digressed because organized religion gave people a whole new ideal to fight over. Shouldn’t an all knowing “god” have been able to foresee that outcome, or at least rectify it once it began to happen.
If the people who lived prior to Jesus and Moses arrival knew of no divine law, were they held accountable for their sins? If so that would seem fairly inequitable to hold someone accountable for something they had no knowledge of, and if not it would be inequitable to allow them to sin and then ascend to heaven when the rest of us are held to certain standards. I also find it hard to believe that “god” allowed them to worship false “god’s” for thousands of years before stepping in, when we know that bothers him/her. He/She supposedly said, “You shall have no other gods before me.” Yet he/she can not expect people to know which god to worship before he shows up. And if he/she really cares if people are worshipping him/her as opposed to false gods then why not send messengers all over the world instead of only to Jerusalem and Egypt?
Are we to believe that Jesus wanted his word to be heard by everyone or just those in that spot at that time? If he wanted everyone to believe then why not write it down. Or for that matter why not just snap his fingers and create a book of his father’s word? Why was it necessary for him to speak only to a few followers, and then let people mistranslate it, change, and manipulate it for hundreds of years to follow until it was printed? And surely this all powerful “god” could see the future, so I suppose he wanted there to be several different versions of his word that people could not possibly have any clue to the validity of any particular one. And I also suppose he is quite pleased with people fighting over him. It does fit the pattern, anyone that would value being worshipped would also value the attention of being fought over.
Evidence, Faith, and Preferential Treatment
Did Moses and Jesus need to perform miracles to secure the respect and faith from their followers? Couldn’t Jesus have just shown up and relied on his follower’s faith to know he was the one true son of “god”? Why do people today have to rely on faith, when “god” accepted the fact that many others needed evidence to convince them. Are people held to a higher standard today than people who are considered saints by the Catholic Church? And why did “god” give some people direct evidence and not others? Why didn’t he show up in every city/country so everyone would have the equal opportunity to behold this evidence? Or show up every few generations so we don’t have to rely on an obviously fictitious work?
If having faith and adhering to religious laws gets one into heaven and ignoring those laws earns a person eternal damnation then it’s a huge advantage to have direct evidence of a “god.” It’s far easier to follow a divine code if you know for a fact it is a true code. Given that some were given this huge advantage while most were not we must believe that “god” loves some of us more than others, based on their place of their birth. For instance, why did “god” use his power during two particular generations and then withhold it forevermore? It doesn’t make sense for a “god” to give special powers to Moses to free the Jewish people from Egyptian “bondage,” (Some historians claim that the Jews living in Egypt were subject to the same pyramid duty as every other Egyptian, rather than slavery like the bible proclaims.) but then not help them during the Roman occupation, in which they fought many bloody wars for independence, or when Hitler was massacring them by the millions? Why step up during a minor period of suffering, when so many greater catastrophes have befallen the Jews, and many others?
Jury of Our Peers?
Most democratic governments base their legal system on being judged by one’s peers, but is that really the case? A peer is an equal, and although we are all supposedly equal under the law, we are unequal in almost every other respect. Some of us are smart, some dumb, some are rich, some poor, some black, some white, some educated, and some ignorant…. We acknowledge these differences every day by freely self-segregating ourselves into classes based on wealth, intelligence, race, education, morality….Yet for some reason we still allow ourselves to be judged by people who we don’t see as our equals. In terms of importance to the impartiality of a jury, those inequalities create bias, which is exactly what our jury system tries to eliminate. In an ideal world, there is no prejudice, no bias and equality under the law is all that matters.
Unfortunately, this beautiful democratic allusion has proven to be practically allusive in our society. Blacks often get longer sentences than whites for the same crimes, women get less time than men, and celebrities usually get off Scot free, and so on and so forth.
The jury of one’s peers concept is based on the supposed impartiality of a random sample of the population. The theory predicts that the normal person will share more similarities with a random sample of the population than differences, and therefore will be judged by people who are likely to give him a fair shake. The problem with this theory is two fold: first, those of us who are not average will have a much smaller likelihood of having our peers comprise the majority of the jury, and second, the mechanisms of the Voir Dire process, or jury selection, exacerbates the problem by creating juries consisting of a greater percentage of poor, uneducated, unintelligent people, with very little experience with the justice system, than their natural prevalence in society.
How does this happen? First many professionals who have experience in the legal field like judges, lawyers, police officers, and professors are automatically excluded. If we look at the general population, about 5% are wealthy, 30% well educated, and then the minorities, by definition, comprise a small percentage of the population. If we put 50 people in a room for jury selection that means only 2.5 on average will be wealthy, 15 well educated, 6 Black, 7 Hispanic, and those with experience have already been eliminated. If each side has 5 peremptory challenges they can eliminate the wealthy, decimate the minorities, and severally limit the well educated. And that’s just with the peremptory challenges.
Then they have an unlimited number of challenges for cause, which means they can eliminate someone based on their likely bias for or against the defendant. The first question they usually ask is “Does anyone here have a criminal history or a family member with a criminal history?” The judge then grants the dismissal of anyone who answers yes based on their likely bias, which eliminates anyone with criminal history, thereby eliminating many of the remaining minorities, and those with first hand knowledge of the injustice of the American legal system.
Many intelligent, educated people use this step of the process to get out of jury selection because they often have higher work loads, more demanding jobs, and generally better things to do. While the wealthy/educated/intelligent are weaseling their way out of jury duty, the poor or unemployed are lying to get on because they get a small check, and they value the excitement and the opportunity to matter. It is also a notorious fact that lawyers try to eliminate intelligent/educated people right off the bat because less intelligent people are easier to convince/manipulate. As my Vanderbilt criminal justice professor told my class upon graduation, “You are now far to educated to ever be on a jury.” Although that seems like a ridiculous concept, in depth research reveals its validity.
If we are eliminating most of the educated/intelligent, wealthy, minorities, and experienced, then it is not really a jury of our peers now is it? It is a jury of mindless simpletons that make decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought. I do acknowledge that most Americans are not the least bit slighted by this because a jury comprised of mindless simpletons would be a jury of their peers, but it is not a jury my peers. Nor is it a random sample of the population, which would at least have 1 or 2 of my peers on it, thereby preventing the jealousy and resentment that usually come with wealth and intelligence.
Let’s end the façade of random juries and institute a professional jury system. While a professional jury may not be random, at least it will bear greater similarity to the general population than a random jury that’s been put through the voir dire process. We could hire minorities, wealthy, educated, and experienced based on their prevalence in the population. Or if the object is truly a jury of one’s peers then we could have people be judged by those with similar income levels, education, race, etc….
Professional juries would not be susceptible to the “shock factor,” which is a term used to refer to the shock a jury can get from the brutality or outrageousness of a certain crime, which frequently biases their verdicts. Professional juries could realistically disregard comments that are stricken from the record, whereas we all know that the common man will not forget what was said, no matter how many times you tell him to.
Professional juries could understand cases that involve complicated financial webs and intricate technical details that average people with little experience and intelligence could ever hope to grasp. Lawyers would no longer have to dumb down their cases. Verdicts would no longer be decided based on the attractiveness of the lawyer, or the image of the defendant.
And most importantly, professional juries would be far less biased than the general population because they would be doing a job rather than acting on emotion, and at least their rulings could be reviewed. Their decision making process would be open so everyone could see the legal justification for their ruling. They would have to write legal opinions on their decision just like the Supreme Court. Then we could have a judicial oversight committee that analyzes the legal basis for their decisions and have a little accountability.
And the kicker: we would save an absolute fortune! Every day we spend vast amounts of time and resources explaining all of the rules to each jury, determining their bias, and answering their ridiculous questions. Just remember, cases can only go as fast as the slowest/dumbest juror. With a professional jury, cases would go faster, freeing up the judicial system. Citizens would no longer have to waste their time going down to the courthouse and waiting all day only to find out they weren’t acceptable. Lawyers and judges would no longer have to go through the monotony of explaining all of the rules every time, or picking jurors and rolling the dice.
Unfortunately, this beautiful democratic allusion has proven to be practically allusive in our society. Blacks often get longer sentences than whites for the same crimes, women get less time than men, and celebrities usually get off Scot free, and so on and so forth.
The jury of one’s peers concept is based on the supposed impartiality of a random sample of the population. The theory predicts that the normal person will share more similarities with a random sample of the population than differences, and therefore will be judged by people who are likely to give him a fair shake. The problem with this theory is two fold: first, those of us who are not average will have a much smaller likelihood of having our peers comprise the majority of the jury, and second, the mechanisms of the Voir Dire process, or jury selection, exacerbates the problem by creating juries consisting of a greater percentage of poor, uneducated, unintelligent people, with very little experience with the justice system, than their natural prevalence in society.
How does this happen? First many professionals who have experience in the legal field like judges, lawyers, police officers, and professors are automatically excluded. If we look at the general population, about 5% are wealthy, 30% well educated, and then the minorities, by definition, comprise a small percentage of the population. If we put 50 people in a room for jury selection that means only 2.5 on average will be wealthy, 15 well educated, 6 Black, 7 Hispanic, and those with experience have already been eliminated. If each side has 5 peremptory challenges they can eliminate the wealthy, decimate the minorities, and severally limit the well educated. And that’s just with the peremptory challenges.
Then they have an unlimited number of challenges for cause, which means they can eliminate someone based on their likely bias for or against the defendant. The first question they usually ask is “Does anyone here have a criminal history or a family member with a criminal history?” The judge then grants the dismissal of anyone who answers yes based on their likely bias, which eliminates anyone with criminal history, thereby eliminating many of the remaining minorities, and those with first hand knowledge of the injustice of the American legal system.
Many intelligent, educated people use this step of the process to get out of jury selection because they often have higher work loads, more demanding jobs, and generally better things to do. While the wealthy/educated/intelligent are weaseling their way out of jury duty, the poor or unemployed are lying to get on because they get a small check, and they value the excitement and the opportunity to matter. It is also a notorious fact that lawyers try to eliminate intelligent/educated people right off the bat because less intelligent people are easier to convince/manipulate. As my Vanderbilt criminal justice professor told my class upon graduation, “You are now far to educated to ever be on a jury.” Although that seems like a ridiculous concept, in depth research reveals its validity.
If we are eliminating most of the educated/intelligent, wealthy, minorities, and experienced, then it is not really a jury of our peers now is it? It is a jury of mindless simpletons that make decisions based on emotion rather than rational thought. I do acknowledge that most Americans are not the least bit slighted by this because a jury comprised of mindless simpletons would be a jury of their peers, but it is not a jury my peers. Nor is it a random sample of the population, which would at least have 1 or 2 of my peers on it, thereby preventing the jealousy and resentment that usually come with wealth and intelligence.
Let’s end the façade of random juries and institute a professional jury system. While a professional jury may not be random, at least it will bear greater similarity to the general population than a random jury that’s been put through the voir dire process. We could hire minorities, wealthy, educated, and experienced based on their prevalence in the population. Or if the object is truly a jury of one’s peers then we could have people be judged by those with similar income levels, education, race, etc….
Professional juries would not be susceptible to the “shock factor,” which is a term used to refer to the shock a jury can get from the brutality or outrageousness of a certain crime, which frequently biases their verdicts. Professional juries could realistically disregard comments that are stricken from the record, whereas we all know that the common man will not forget what was said, no matter how many times you tell him to.
Professional juries could understand cases that involve complicated financial webs and intricate technical details that average people with little experience and intelligence could ever hope to grasp. Lawyers would no longer have to dumb down their cases. Verdicts would no longer be decided based on the attractiveness of the lawyer, or the image of the defendant.
And most importantly, professional juries would be far less biased than the general population because they would be doing a job rather than acting on emotion, and at least their rulings could be reviewed. Their decision making process would be open so everyone could see the legal justification for their ruling. They would have to write legal opinions on their decision just like the Supreme Court. Then we could have a judicial oversight committee that analyzes the legal basis for their decisions and have a little accountability.
And the kicker: we would save an absolute fortune! Every day we spend vast amounts of time and resources explaining all of the rules to each jury, determining their bias, and answering their ridiculous questions. Just remember, cases can only go as fast as the slowest/dumbest juror. With a professional jury, cases would go faster, freeing up the judicial system. Citizens would no longer have to waste their time going down to the courthouse and waiting all day only to find out they weren’t acceptable. Lawyers and judges would no longer have to go through the monotony of explaining all of the rules every time, or picking jurors and rolling the dice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)