After realizing I had missed the deadline to request postponing my jury duty service because of my student status, I looked forward to missing classes and work for a good and legal reason. (The only catch was that I had to get to Woodland by 8am.) Most of my day consisted of sitting in the large jury room, anxiously awaiting instruction or dismissal. I eventually was sorted into a panel of potential jurors and we were escorted up to the courtroom. The judge told us about the case and how the jury selection process was going to work. This was a criminal case and the charge was robbery. After the defense and the prosecution asked questions to the first group of 18 potential jurors, we gathered a bit more information: the accused was homeless at the time of the crime, the accused had some kind of problem with substance abuse, and the item he stole was a bottle of soda priced at about $1. The charge was robbery and not shoplifting because the accused had shown "the appearance of a weapon" which was later revealed to mean a bee bee gun that looked like a real firearm.
Many of the potential jurors were dismissed, all of whom had shown sympathy or empathy towards homeless people and people struggling with substance abuse. There were also several people on the panel who had been victims of (or accused of) robbery in the past; these individuals had to tell their stories -- under oath -- to a room full of strangers. I found this to be particularly strange.
When it was my turn to be questioned by the judge, defense, and prosecution I said that based on the information we had been given it seemed like the homeless man was stealing out of necessity, not because he wanted to cause harm. People nodded and agreed with me, and two women who were in the jury box were dismissed because they agreed with my position. Surprisingly, I was not dismissed immediately and it came down to a 50/50 shot at being the alternate juror, and I lucked out in not being selected.
When I stated my opinion in the courtroom, the tension in the room grew. The judge then interrupted the prosecution's questioning to explain to the potential jurors that it did not matter whether the accused needs help or prison, our job was only to decide "guilty" or "not guilty," with punishment being left entirely up to the judge. This made sense to me, it would be strange to let a panel of peers create or decide punishments for criminals. However, the question of guilt seemed like it was not difficult to answer -- the man did rob the convenience store, and his lawyer was not disputing that. In my understanding, the only link between knowing that the man did commit the crime and being guilty of the crime was free will.
Whether or not you believe free will is an illusion or is real or controlled by fate or "God" or whatever, I think we can all agree that this man's circumstances had a lot to do with the crime he committed. As I pondered this man's free will and action in committing this crime, I was reminded of Harrington's description of late sixteenth century Europe and the way an economic crisis created more criminals - especially thieves and highwaymen who had to steal to survive. Then I thought of Goffman's teachings and main principles of Labeling Theory. Homelessness is a product of a poor economy; this was true in 1585 and it is still true today. We know this because in countries where homeless people are given free housing and a job, they are able to get back into working life and contribute to the economy and society as a whole. Putting this man away in prison for doing what he felt he had to in order to survive would not be helping anyone -- especially the person who needs the most help: the accused.
Perhaps I am naive to think that this man was truly and innocently trying to survive, but that's what our law says: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What I wanted to say in the courtroom when the judge asked me about my opinion was that I think crime is a social construction made by humans to stigmatize and punish others as a means of making the non-stigmatized feel more secure in their abilities to control others. But this certainly was not the right place to start an in depth discussion of the theory of crime and punishment (nor was I qualified to have that discussion with a lawyer).
I left my jury duty experience feeling angry, tired, and absolutely maddened and saddened by the lack of progress we have made. I wish I could draw fewer similarities between the effects of economics on crime in the 16th century versus today. I wish we were better at learning from our past and learning from our current and similarly-developed peers. It is absolutely insane that in a world with such a low barrier for global communication, we are knowingly ignoring information that would progress us as a nation, as a society, and as a world. I hope to see that change within my lifetime, but currently I am not terribly optimistic that I will.
