.jpg?width=496&height=347&name=Untitled%20design%20(2).jpg)
From late election drop-outs to potential presidential assassinations, today’s political climate is at an all-time high and the attitudes of our society are affected. Because there is such a divide between both parties, a pattern of extreme thinking has developed among the citizens of the United States, which has affected our system of jury process.
Trust and Distrust in the Media and Our Justice System:
According to a study conducted by Gallup News, there is a historically low confidence in news content that is written on paper, produced online, and presented on live television. This major lack of reliable news sources and trust in the media, regardless of political party, has created an unwillingness to accept claims at face value. Well, this seems great right? The American people should absolutely put on their critical thinking hat when digesting political news. This way, they can better use their own personal decision-making skills for the greater good of our country when participating in democracy. But what happens when this pattern of thinking and resistance to major media sources gets taken too far?
Extremism in our society is inevitable and not necessarily negative. But when an individual goes too far down this rabbit hole, the critical thinking hat can sometimes fly off and stay on the soil. There is no longer an organized thought process but rather a deeply decided and stubborn mindset. Again, this pattern of thinking is not wrong by any means, or even negative, but can absolutely cause some problems when it presents itself in your jury box.
How does this affect the public?
Strong and opinionated claims are not unique to the Reddit readers that opposing opinionators quickly undermine. This extreme political discourse has no disqualifiers.
When former president Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts, Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds declared the trial a “sham,” This claim is coming from a strong and educated Republican political voice that declares that due process of law was not conducted. Even though Reynolds holds an important position in government, she has a distrust of the justice system, which is strong enough to make this claim publicly.
When former President Donald Trump faced an assassination attempt on live television, individuals claimed it was “highly suspicious,” and it was reported that a third of Biden supporters believed this incident was “staged.”
Liberal and Republican opinions alike, outliers continue to make extreme claims that stem from the utmost distrust for our legal system and political atmosphere. Even though the majority of opinions and dialogue surrounding them are level-headed, both instances have also created a platform for some extremely hot takes.
In the Courtroom: Why do we care & what can we do?
Having an objective doubt in the justice system is not the goal for anyone. This matters to all parties involved in order to make sure we are upholding the values created for a successful jury process. How can we work within this status quo to ensure that extreme voices are being heard and engaged with, without steamrolling the rest of the jury? How can we re-instill trust in the justice system?
As mentioned previously, we know the United States carries individuals who have extreme opinions. Because they are not unique to age, class, education, or experience, they can exist within your jury.
- Why this is not a bad thing: We want to hear the jury. Those who have strong opinions often like to share them. Even if the opinions being shared, or shared loudly, are not of the standard or idea that works for you or your case, by sharing they have created a space for relevant discourse and conversation among the maybe quieter jurors. Any conversation is good conversation as it represents how the jury thinks and feels and provides more insight into your case and presentation of it.
- How to work with hard personalities who don’t trust in authority: The jurors who do not believe you, are not necessarily against you. When speaking to individuals that you know do not trust you, it is imperative to frame your arguments and questions with language that caters to this and sets the foundation for building that trust. Then, build trust. Establish your credibility in the courtroom with a sense of integrity that is not intimidating.
Distrust in the justice system can stem from multiple facets, it is important to understand which one affects your juror.
- Are they simply uncomfortable? When working in this industry, it is easy to forget that many individuals have never been involved in the justice system. This could potentially be their first time in court. Without the understanding and education on legal jargon, entering a courtroom is an incredibly daunting space. Speaking to the jury in their language creates a sense of commonality that could knock down the first wall they have likely put up. Educate them and ensure each individual understands the system process and knows the role they will be playing. Give them the tools to be successful and allow them to use them.
- Do they have personal biases or experiences that have affected them? Distrust in the legal system is not totally unaccounted for. In fact, it has failed many times. Those who get called in for jury duty usually are aware of this idea and it can spark some pretty intense feelings. Understand your juror and why they may not want to be there. Use this as a leveling opportunity, and meet them where they are. This continues to encourage the sense of commonality that is important for connecting with people and establishing a strong foundation so they feel comfortable speaking up and providing honest feedback. This can be useful in all stages, especially voir dire and deliberations.
-3.png?width=50&height=50&name=image%20(2)-3.png)
Comments