The idea of a trial before a jury of one's peers — 12 ordinary citizens — is as essentially democratic, and as essential to democracy, as the principle of one person, one vote at the ballot box.
A person's commitment to the jury system is therefore a useful measure of that person's commitment to democracy itself.
Consider, for example, a sleazy insurance company executive who hires a sleazy law firm that specializes in "jury selection" in order to game the system and create a sympathetically biased jury. We can assume that this same executive would have no qualms about gaming the system when it comes to elections. The two activities, after all, involve many of the same steps — foremost among them working to exclude black people and any other members of the working class who may feel aggrieved.
Lately, the jury system has come under an even more direct, and more radical, attack. Under the name of "tort reform," the Bush/Cheney campaign has called into question the very legitimacy of the democratic idea of trial by jury. Juries, they argue, are incompetent and out of control. They must be limited, restricted, brought to heel and made to obey.
Bracket for the moment the fact that, as Dwight Meredith points out, "tort reform" will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care. What I'm interested in here is what this so-called reform reveals about the current administration's attitude toward, and commitment to, democracy and the democratic process.
If they do not believe that the people, the public, can be trusted in the jury box, then do they believe the people can be trusted at the ballot box? And if not, what are they planning to do about it?
Dr. Lasswell, please call your office.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In