|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllTwelve Angry MenWritten by Darrell Anderson. Twelve Angry Men is a movie about participating on a jury. The original 93-minute black and white movie, based upon the screenplay written by Reginald Rose, was released in 1957 and featured Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, E. G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, and Jack Warden. There was a 1997 remake of the original movie. For all but a couple of minutes, the entire original movie takes place in the confined space of a locked jury deliberation room. There are no trial flashbacks, no reenactments, and no argument scenes from the trial. Most of the juror names are unknown. An individual might think such a movie would be boring and that person would be wrong. The jury must decide a murder trial. At the beginning of the deliberations all the men but Fonda quickly vote to find the defendant guilty. When challenged to render a guilty vote, Fonda merely replied that he believed the jurors at least should discuss the evidence and facts before issuing a verdict. After all, they were deciding a murder charge and the electric chair was the possible final result. The remaining jurors grudgingly agreed to discuss the issue. The ending is predictable, but how the men arrive at their final verdict is not. Emotions run high throughout the deliberations and tensions grow as each man slowly considers the verdict. This is a suspenseful movie. This is a serious movie. What any viewer should sense from this movie is the unsettling realization that jurors can be wrong, and possibly, often are. Furthermore, this movie shows that jurors often convict based upon personal prejudices and biases (the accused was an Hispanic teen accused of knifing his father to death). This movie shows how many people provide little thought into difficult issues, how most are willing to go with the flow. This movie shows how most people rarely develop critical thinking skills. This movie shows the psychological pressures of thinking contrarily outside the box. Lastly, not only did the jurors in this movie come close to convicting without any discussion or thought, but the movie also showed that the words “reasonable doubt” have substance. This movie shows how all humans are creatures of limited knowledge. You will be surprised by how the jurors are gradually convinced to acquit. The movie is important in these days of statism. Although all true offenders should provide remedy for their trespasses, the majority of statist charges filed against people are manufactured crimes, crimes that exist only because a statist legislature created the crime by fiat — out of thin air. Most statist crimes are victimless, being mere malum prohibitum (an act that becomes “wrong” merely by declaration) versus malum in se (a wrong act simply because of the nature of the act). Several years ago I sat on a jury. Although I had already begun my journey in rejecting all things statist, I had not yet arrived at the logical conclusion of anarchy. At the time I recognized that something was wrong with the American political system, but I was more or less a minarchist or supporter of “limited government.” Nonetheless, I was not going to be a lemming and rubber stamp the statist prosecutor’s point of view. I also still embraced the idea that the judicial system could succeed. Although not yet then a committed anarchist, I did seriously consider ignoring the “jury summons.” However, I thought the experience might be personally useful if I learned how the statist “just us” court system operated. I still am pleased that I hung the jury and refused to convict with the manufactured statist charges. The charge was driving within the state for more than 30 days without obtaining a state-issued license. One of the elements of the charge included trying to prove that the defendant was a “resident” of the state and that the defendant’s existing license from another state was void despite being current. I wish I had seen the movie before I sat on that jury. By watching the movie maybe I would have had a little more insight to human nature and juries. Maybe I would have had a different attitude and instead of just refusing to convict and hanging the jury, like Fonda I might have tried convincing the other jurors to fully acquit. For my decision I did not use any Fully Informed Jury Association arguments. In the end I was able to base my verdict upon a straightforward reading of the fiat statutes and arguing that the prosecutor had failed to prove all the elements of the charge. Interestingly, the charging document we jurors were provided that listed the charges did not list the actual statute allegedly violated. The paper provided only a vague statement. If you have seen a traffic citation, then you are familiar with these vague statements, such as “35 in a 25.” Nothing of substance. Likewise, a room full of jurors was expected to decide a man’s fate based upon such vague statements. Three times during deliberation I requested information from the judge and three times we jurors all were led by the bailiff back to the court room so the judge could “explain the law.” For one of the trips I had requested a copy of the actual charging statute. In that statute the word “resident” was used. I later requested a statutory definition of resident, and that was the opening I needed to provide myself standing not to convict. The prosecutor had failed to convince me that the defendant was a resident as defined by statute. Although I never was in danger of being “coerced” into changing my mind, people should not underestimate the psychological pressure of being in a closed room with several other people when they all possess contrary opinions. What amazed me when I watched Twelve Angry Men was that my experience also showed how quickly the other jurors were so ready to convict and go home to supper. When I participated in the process the other jurors all issued a guilty verdict within two minutes. They all stared at me waiting for the word “guilty” so everybody could go home. Within the next two hours and after several attempts by the other jurors to persuade me otherwise, they finally surrendered and saw that I would not convict. What you should understand was they all fully believed I was an accessory to promoting unlawfulness and disorder. Generally, these people believed the statist judicial system could do no wrong. The other jurors were not at all pleased with me. This was a room filled with complete strangers, yet voices were raised, and like the movie, emotions were evident. Do not think that if you attend a jury that everybody sits calmly and politely discusses the case. One younger man (I think he was barely out of high school) accused me of rendering the entire process a waste of time because I would not agree with the rest. As the deliberation crawled another lady declared that she would make sure she never again sat on a jury — she wanted to go home. All of them repeatedly kept looking at the wall clock. One elderly lady told me that I was a “very close-minded young man.” Of course, from her perspective even middle-aged people are young, but I wonder if she was capable of understanding the simple logic that by calling me close-minded she was in fact concurrently labeling herself likewise? Do people who don’t know they don’t know? Regardless, indirectly the judge vindicated my effort. Throughout the entire trial I had much respect for this judge — he was not the typical corrupt judge that I have read so many horror stories about. In fact, during one moment of the trial the judge slammed the prosecutor for violating one of the court rules of evidence. (In hindsight, I wonder if the judge was perturbed at wasting resources over such an idiotic charge.) After reading the verdict and declaring a mistrial, the judge then addressed the jurors and thanked everybody for their efforts. He then told the jurors to “not feel bad” about the hung verdict, that just the previous month he had observed the same results on a similar charge. I wanted to jump and holler, “Yesssssss!” I likely never again will be selected for jury duty for two reasons. One reason is I have since rescinded my voter registration. Second, after the trial I had a discussion with a FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) coordinator. The coordinator told me that although he never would have sufficient evidence, he believed that prosecutors maintained black lists of people who refuse to convict. Therefore, I was told that although I might be “summoned” to report for jury “duty,” I likely never would again survive voir dire (jury stacking). The disturbing part of my experience was realizing how brainwashed the other jurors were. I think you are in for a rude awakening if you think you are going to waltz into a trial and through some intelligent and articulate arguments convince a typical jury not to convict you against a typical statist charge. You had better attend a few trials to obtain some experience. Juries generally do succeed in private civil trials, but when “the state” is the plaintiff in a civil or criminal action, the typical juror attitude is that the defendant must be guilty — why else would the prosecutor pursue a trial? Since that day I have matured and progressed more fully in my own personal journey. Although I reject all things statist, if today I received a jury “summons” I might still go. If I attended I would do so not because I believe “the state” possesses standing over me, but because I know there is a reasonable chance that if “the state” is involved then the charges more than likely are illusionary. Although I might “submit” to future jury summons, that does not mean I believe any such summons has legitimacy. Also, being from a rural area, there is a chance the local prosecutor does not maintain a black list. If somehow I could get selected, I then would be able not to convict against nonsensical charges. Better yet, because of my first jury experience and subsequent maturation, I’d be much better prepared to articulate to the other jurors why they should acquit. I would not base my reasons upon any FIJA, anarchist, or anti-statist arguments. There is no way I can imagine a closed room full of brainwashed jurors understanding such arguments. Such an effort would be futile, much like trying to teach a pig to sing — I would waste my time and frustrate the pig. Worse, such an effort likely would find me spending a few days at the gray-barred hotel for contempt charges and I might find myself being charged with jury tampering. Not that I could not afford the time, I merely would prefer to pursue other more productive activities. No, like the first time, I would weed my way through the statutes and develop a logical argument about why the prosecutor had failed to prove all elements of the charge. Prosecutors rarely prove all elements of a charge. I doubt that many attorneys even understand that process (but I need not teach the other jurors this observation). In other words, I’d play the statist game using their own rules, and then quietly walk away smiling. I might not convince all the other jurors to acquit, but if I convince two or three, the numbers then look much better should jurors remain hung. However, if I could convince two or three others to acquit, then those people could join me to convince the remaining jurors. Regardless, and most importantly, a wrongfully prosecuted individual remains free. The statist witch hunt dies. I am not advocating that fellow anarchists should agree with me. I understand those people who want to fight a jury summons and I would never condemn any individual who tried to “opt out.” On the other hand I would note that opting out is actually easy to do whereas staying and monkey-wrench the process in an intelligent fashion might be more challenging — and more fun. I enjoyed my moment of quietly defying the statists. Nobody can ever take away what I did, and I played the game all according to the statist rules. For those people who like throwing sand into the gears of statism, sitting on a jury is an easy way to have some fun. Furthermore, should the accusations include true harm or trespass to an individual, you still get to participate in that process in the hopes of rendering some manner of justice. Yes, such a process is imperfect, but that is the best humans can hope for and justice must nonetheless be provided. Just because the statists often are wrong does not mean the underlying precepts for having a trial and a jury are wrong, or that occasionally the process never provides some value. Even the blind hog occasionally finds an acorn. Thus, by sitting on a jury, a well-informed individual can ensure justice is served — either to a real victim if there is one, or to the defendant by thwarting the statist’s illusionary powers. Now go watch Twelve Angry Men. And learn. Finis. Next: Capital Punishment |
||