To Free the Truth

Our decisions in this system depend on the collective votes of jury members, usually 12, at each trial. We expect this jury to make an informed, impartial decision. Jury trials are only good practice in theory, though, and for several reasons.

First, utilizing a working group of people to make a decision together is the same as asking just one person to do so. It is our tendency on a primitive level as social creatures to follow the herd, to conform. As Richard Dawkins states in his essay Trial by Jury, “juries are massively swayed by one or two vocal individuals.” We use multiple member juries hoping that the group will be able to hash out the topic together with more knowledge and understanding. But, that isn’t reality. Leaders speak and the herd follows. What you have, then, is not 12 independently reached assessments of the evidence, but rather one or two assessments which influence all the rest. It’s like putting these lives in the hands of just one person to do as they see fit. With the way the jury selection process is designed, that often means that the deck is stacked against the accused to start.

Juries are complicated even more because impartial decisions are impossible to obtain. The saying is that justice is blind, but that’s certainly a flawed assessment of reality. Each juror comes armed with biases, experiences, beliefs, perceptions, prejudices, and the like. Those factors, regardless of orders to be impartial, are sociologically proven to greatly influence an individual’s decisions–especially when strong leaders with strong beliefs and biases are taking charge of juries. All of this is proven in the arbitrary manner in which death is  handed out.

You will find discrepancies across the country among the offenders who are actually punished by death. Gender plays an important role in who does and does not get death. 1 in 10 murders are committed by women, but only 1 in 50 offenders given the death penalty are female. So, females represent 10% of all murderers bu only 2% of all persons given the death penalty.

Economic status also contributes to death sentences. More often than not, offenders facing a capital trial are poor. They certainly can’t afford their own attorney and are, instead, given court appointed attorneys who are often ill trained and definitely underpaid. Many of them are, assuredly, not the cream of the crop. In Texas, for example, 1 in 4 capital offenders were represented by attorneys who have either been reprimanded for their behavior or disbarred altogether.

Race is also an issue. 96% of the states which have studied race and the death penalty show an obvious link between race of the victim,  race of the offender, or both and punishment of death.  Looking at numbers strictly, it is more than obvious to even the average joe that the victim’s race is an issue. Whites represent about half of all murder victims-close to 50%. But, when looking at the victims of capital cases, whites were the victims in 80% of them. This means that juries tend to place more value on the lives of whites more than others races.

The area of the country seems to be a huge influencing factor as well. Since reinstatement, 1136 people have been killed (more now since Texas is on a roll this year once again). Of those 1136, the South is responsible for killing 922–well over half. And, most of those were executed by Texas…about half of that 922, actually.

On a final note (but certainly not the last of these issues), death as stated in so many publications is supposed to be reserved for heinous crimes, for offenders beyond repair who have committed crimes so atrocious that death is the only solution.  But, that doesn’t happen, either. Gary Ridgeway killed 48 people in the state of Washington over decades. He admitted it and led police to several bodies. Ridgeway, deemed the Green River Killer, was given life. He ‘helped’ police and was offered a life sentence in trade. Yet, in Texas, you don’t even have to kill someone to receive death and, in fact, there are several people on death row now because of the law of parties. All you have to do is be present at the crime scene with a connection to the actual killer. You don’t have to murder, wound, or even have an intent to kill.

Some things just do not add up if we’re talking about blind justice and impartial juries.

Justice should be fair and accurate especially when you’re discussing the death of another person no matter what that person is accused of doing. Accusations do not mean guilt and the evidence should be weighed without regard for specific characteristics. Giving any type of person a death sentence more often than others completely undermines the ideas of justice, fairness, and accuracy. Instead of being based on the crimes and the evidence, it seems (and studies show) that death is merely the whim of jurors. It depends more on their personal thoughts, beliefs, and experiences than an impartial weighing of the facts. Life is too meaningful to be extinguished so casually.