Signs of a Decaying System

I reported for jury duty yesterday morning at the district courthouse. This is the second time that I have been asked to serve as a potential jurist. The first time I was called I served on a jury in a criminal trial which went to verdict. This time, I was selected as part of the 20 member panel questioned for selection in a civil case but, in the end, was not chosen as one of the eight jury members.

I'm glad I wasn't chosen. We were told that presentation of the testimony and evidence was expected to last four days. That would have been a major inconvenience but I don't mind being inconvenienced if I am doing something worthwhile. I'm glad that I wasn't chosen because I started to see signs of a decaying justice system sitting in the courtroom in front of me.

As part of the jury selection system, each party gets to have their lawyer ask questions of the jury to ensure that people who can follow the letter of the law and not let their presuppositions or personal opinions get in the way. This practice is admirable and, if taken in a vacuum where everything else is equal, would be ideal. But it isn't. Sitting in a room with 40-50 strangers and being asked to answer philosophical questions about the legal system with no time for reflection is a daunting task. It's way easier to say, "I don't have an opinion," or "I'm okay with that," rather than try to articulate what you might really think.

Do I think that a citizen is entitled to sue someone for damages if they have been wronged?

How do I answer that question? A simple, "Yes," or "No," doesn't come close to the nuance that is needed in a system as complex as the legal system in the US. Yes, I believe that a citizen should have the rights and the protections to sue someone who has caused harm through negligence or willfulness. Being compensated for medical costs and lost wages seems fair.

But accidents happen. In hind-sight it is easy to say, "You could have been more careful." But that is not negligence.The protection we need is from those who show a pattern of negligence, which is a criminal issue in my mind, not a civil issue.

As I sat through the questioning I also discovered that I have some real issues with awarding  punitive damages or compensation for pain and suffering. Money will not bring healing or wholeness to the person who is hurt. I've met happy people who are rich and happy people who are poor. I've met unhappy people who are rich and unhappy people who are poor. Money has nothing to do with happiness. We just think it does. Asking for more than what you have legitimately lost is simple greed and shows that you don't care about the other party. I understand this feeling of revenge but I don't think it has any place in our courtroom.

Awarding someone hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars as compensation for their suffering doesn't help the victim it only punishes the defendant. If the defendant is guilty of wrongdoing, that is a criminal case. If they are guilty of wrongdoing but not breaking the law, that is a legislative issue, not a justice issue.

In the end I was not chosen to be on the jury. I was relieved that I wouldn't have to wrestle with these beliefs in a courtroom where the law says that it is okay for these things to happen. The fact that the justice system ends up doing the job of the legislative system tells me that both systems are mucked up. When prospective jurists have to be vetted as to whether or not their belief in the law will get in the way of being fair to all parties tells me the people inside the system know the system is breaking down.

Perhaps we do have the best legal system in the world, and the most fair. But that shouldn't stop us from working to make it even better.