In the context of America's current political situation in which law enforcement agents may be under orders to not use (or may be afraid to use) force (let alone deadly force if necessary), and/or may delay response while thinking twice about whether to do so, are jurors safe inside America's courtrooms and/or outside its courthouses? Should a juror be able to mail back his/her summons with a request to only be considered for a civil case?
If I were writing these words two years prior (i.e., in 2013), I think that a reader would be reasonable in telling me that I am simply being paranoid. However, I am writing these words in November of 2015, and in just the last two years alone, America has become a very different place. Law enforcement as well as society itself is changing (I would argue degrading) on a month-to-month basis in this country.
As of the time of this writing (I will update this section as warranted), some law enforcement agents may be operating under orders (either direct or implied) to “stand down,” and to not interfere with protests. This may be the case regardless of whether the protests are violent, or whether they are disruptive yet peaceful acts of civil disobedience. In plain English, politicians and police departments have to be very careful with matters escalating and/or turning into a “political nightmare.” It is somewhat reminiscent of a parent or school teacher “picking his/her battles carefully.”
There are logistical and financial concerns as well. It doesn't help a town if a matter escalates, and results in millions of dollars in damages caused by a large-scale riot. There is also no point in arresting a large number of people if there isn't space available at local jails to temporarily contain them all, nor government employees who can process the arrestees even if it is merely to give them the proverbial “slap on the wrist” and shove them out the “revolving door” to rejoin the protest in progress.
More importantly, there is presently a concern as to whether law-enforcement offers can and should use force (deadly or otherwise) to stop an alleged criminal or fleeing suspect, or to arrest an individual who is resisting since it may turn out that the individual was unarmed, and that the force used (which may have been deadly) was excessive and unnecessary. Of course it may also turn out that unbeknownst to the arresting offer, the individual was actually not guilty of the alleged crime in question.
There is also a concern about the current state of our nation's mainstream news media which does whatever it possibly can to get its readers/viewers riled up, even if it means reporting on stories in which all of the facts are not yet available, or twisting or exaggerating the facts as suits its agenda.
What does all this have to do with jury duty? When taking all of the above into account, I think it is reasonable if a juror were to maintain the position of, “Do not put me in a room with an unshackled alleged criminal who, statistically speaking, is likely a known felon with a lengthy list of prior offenses. Furthermore, do not put me in a room with such an individual if I cannot be certain that law enforcement agents will take the appropriate action to 'neutralize' the situation if s/he engages in any threatening or aggressive behavior. Furthermore, do not put me in a room with such an individual if there is reason to believe that law enforcement agents may delay or 'think twice' before using force out of fear that they, themselves, will end up imprisoned for life, in hiding for life, or dead."
With all that in mind, I believe that the time has come to honor a juror who wishes to honor his/her civic duty by serving on a civil case but not on a criminal case—or at least not one in which there is the tiniest reasonable concern over an attack and/or retribution in which law enforcement response (if any) may not be effective.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents
As of the time of this writing (I will update this section as warranted), some law enforcement agents may be operating under orders (either direct or implied) to “stand down,” and to not interfere with protests. This may be the case regardless of whether the protests are violent, or whether they are disruptive yet peaceful acts of civil disobedience. In plain English, politicians and police departments have to be very careful with matters escalating and/or turning into a “political nightmare.” It is somewhat reminiscent of a parent or school teacher “picking his/her battles carefully.”
There are logistical and financial concerns as well. It doesn't help a town if a matter escalates, and results in millions of dollars in damages caused by a large-scale riot. There is also no point in arresting a large number of people if there isn't space available at local jails to temporarily contain them all, nor government employees who can process the arrestees even if it is merely to give them the proverbial “slap on the wrist” and shove them out the “revolving door” to rejoin the protest in progress.
More importantly, there is presently a concern as to whether law-enforcement offers can and should use force (deadly or otherwise) to stop an alleged criminal or fleeing suspect, or to arrest an individual who is resisting since it may turn out that the individual was unarmed, and that the force used (which may have been deadly) was excessive and unnecessary. Of course it may also turn out that unbeknownst to the arresting offer, the individual was actually not guilty of the alleged crime in question.
There is also a concern about the current state of our nation's mainstream news media which does whatever it possibly can to get its readers/viewers riled up, even if it means reporting on stories in which all of the facts are not yet available, or twisting or exaggerating the facts as suits its agenda.
What does all this have to do with jury duty? When taking all of the above into account, I think it is reasonable if a juror were to maintain the position of, “Do not put me in a room with an unshackled alleged criminal who, statistically speaking, is likely a known felon with a lengthy list of prior offenses. Furthermore, do not put me in a room with such an individual if I cannot be certain that law enforcement agents will take the appropriate action to 'neutralize' the situation if s/he engages in any threatening or aggressive behavior. Furthermore, do not put me in a room with such an individual if there is reason to believe that law enforcement agents may delay or 'think twice' before using force out of fear that they, themselves, will end up imprisoned for life, in hiding for life, or dead."
With all that in mind, I believe that the time has come to honor a juror who wishes to honor his/her civic duty by serving on a civil case but not on a criminal case—or at least not one in which there is the tiniest reasonable concern over an attack and/or retribution in which law enforcement response (if any) may not be effective.
Go to Next Topic
Go to Table to Contents