I have been summoned to the local court for jury service next month. It’s strange being called to consider evidence against people you have never met. There is so much that I will never know about the person in the dock, and perhaps that will make the task easier.
Imagine if I had all the background details of someone’s journey into criminality. For a start, their criminal past would taint the presumption of innocence. But what if a social worker’s report was required and the jury discovered the hardships and circumstances that led to an alleged act of criminality?
I like that sketch that Not the Nine O’Clock News did back in the 80’s. Pamela Stephenson played an outraged authoritarian type being interviewed about youth crime. Mel Smith was being interviewed with her as a liberal who exhibited all the understanding of social conditioning and economic inequality. After some debate about the issues, the interviewer asked the authoritarian what she would do. “I would cut their balls off!” she answered and when the liberal was asked the same question, he replied, “I would cut their balls off, no question about it.”
Distance and objectivity should make arbitration easier than the full knowledge of an individual’s past. But it is human nature to fill in the blanks and make assumptions about people based on very little. Recognising that failing should focus the mind on reliable facts and evidence rather than conjecture and prejudice.
odespinner 