Jury Reform: Not the libertarian way

A good libertarian friend of mine, Mark, shared his response to his nephew who had invited some remarks from him on Jury reform for a school newspaper project. Mark assailed the jury system more from the stance of the damages some juries award and the nature of some of their acquittals in cases before them. Essentially arguing that a jury pool should comprise of educated and intelligent members of the society who he believes would have a better sense of judgment and discernment. Mark probably figured that I would disagree with his position, as I had not bought most of his libertarian arguments on some of the conversations and issues we discuss in our regular mental interaction. So he wanted to hear my perspective given my social and professional background. Though jury reform may be expedient, it is definitely not for the reasons that my friend Mark advanced in his argument. Thankfully, he conceded that the jury system "has overall, performed well for the country". Assailing the system therefore for what is perceived as "ridiculous damage awards and seemingly incredible acquittals" is not only overkill, but also a simplification and misguided perception of the role of a jury in a judicial system. The jury system is allowed under our constitutional set up for the reason that it affords parties in a case an opportunity to be heard and judged by members of the community which they are part of. The basic responsibility of the jury is deciding the factual issues in dispute under the instruction of the judge. While the judge deals with the legal issues in a case, he or she charges the jury with the required standard to settle a dispute. Basically the judge instructs the jury on what standards of proof to apply in resolving the factual disputation they have heard in a case. In essence, the jury's role is to view all the issues from a lay perspective in making a determination. Much as they confine their deliberation to the factual matters presented in court, they are also community members with communal values and are sworn to fairly evaluate the case before them. Mark indecorously inferred that one had to be a MENSA member (members of high IQ organization) to effectively serve in a jury. He recalled the cases of the woman who was awarded large sum of money for spilling scalding McDonald beverage on herself and also the case of O.J. Simpson, the California ex-footballer that was acquitted in his wife's murder case. As critical as Mark was of the juries in these cases, he very quickly contradicted himself in an attempt to remind juries of the inherent right they must exercise. He wrote, "Juries already have the right to ignore the judges instructions and acquit if the law suit is frivolous, or if they feel the law is unjust or unjustly applied". Duh! That was precisely what the jurors did in the O J Simpson's case. Juries have done the same thing in countless number of cases that it has come to be known in legal parlance as jury nullification. The jurors as Mark unknowingly suggested are a true cross-section of the population as a whole and not just members of the community with stratospheric IQs that he would have preferred. It is simply untrue that lawyers and judges do not want jurors that think. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, having citizens who are alert and capable of following the proceedings in a case helps the cause of justice. Ordinary law abiding citizens who serve on juries can do this. It would be an insult to the collective intelligence of members of any community in the United States to say that they are dense and incapable of seeing through any gimmicks that any party may want to pull in a court proceeding. I will agree with Mark that intelligent successful citizens should endeavor to serve when called for jury duty rather than make excuses to get off jury service. However, suggesting that voir dire - jury selection process be severely curtailed and for each side to only be able to eliminate one person is draconian and unrealistic. People are kicked off juries if it is obvious that they cannot make an impartial assessment in the case to be presented to them. Or if they were related to a party in the case and are wont to favor their relative or for some other obvious reason would impede justice in the case. I agree that jury pay should be increased from the miserly fee juror get currently. Though it is a civic responsibility to serve on a jury, there are factors that create additional inconvenience for which the jurors ought to be compensated. In crowded cities, finding parking space or even a place for lunch, or childcare for stay at home Moms could be such an inconvenience and additional expense on the part of the juror. Finally, we must not put a chill on citizens' right to seek redress in courts by forcing them to pay the entire cost of the trial if they lose as Mark argued. Access to the courts must remain open even to the lowliest of us and to the most indigent citizen in our community. There is already a system in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits. Simply making people pay if they lose a lawsuit will trample on the constitutional rights we are guaranteed as subjects of our constitutional democracy. The libertarians ought to be in the business of empowering citizens and not short changing them for the convenience of the well to do in the society. Ike