To Be or Not To Be (on a Jury)

I am interrupting my exploration of the New Religion proposed by ChatGPT – that AI phenomenon – to reflect on my experience servicing on a jury.  I was summoned to be in a jury pool at the beginning of last week.  Dutifully i.e. not having any valid excuse not to and trekked to the Courthouse in London Ontario.  I was fortunate to be selected to serve on the jury of twelve people and two alternates in a criminal case involving a sexual assault. 

To be honest, I was somewhat ambivalent about the prospect of being selected for jury duty – I didn’t have information at that point on the nature of the trial.  I would be a bit disruptive of my life, but not seriously as I am semi-retired – as I decided that I would declare as my status if asked.  Old clergy don’t retire – they just fade away (it seems I am fading more these days).  I would have to reschedule a number of appointments but nothing major.  Also, having jury duty is a great excuse for getting out of things you are ambivalent about.  As we prospective jurors were advised, if you are able to be excused from serving that means that someone else would have to serve in your place.

Reflecting on the experience, I must say that it was truly valuable, and I would recommend it to anyone who has the opportunity.  There is much that I could say about the experience, but I would like to focus on a few things.  It turned out the jury was both diverse and not diverse.  We had a wide range of ages – I estimated I was the oldest at 75 and the youngest was going to celebrate his twentieth birthday imminently.  The jury was comprised of six men and six women – two alternate jurors were both women, but they were dismissed before evidence was given, which I found out was the usual practice.  However, the accused was a black man and there was only one black person on the jury.  As the judge noted after the trial ended, that was a reflection on the reality of London and probably would have been different in Toronto. 

The jury received a primer on trial law which was very informative and helpful.  We were informed, among other things, that we had to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused strictly on the evidence and not on such things as opening and closing statements.  We were also advised and required to swear that we would put aside – to the best of our ability – any conscious biases we had as well as make every effort to identify and put aside any unconscious biases that we become aware of in the course of the trial and jury deliberations.  As it turned out we did not have to deliberate as a plea bargain was reached after four days and we were dismissed without having to render a verdict.  I am sure that doing so would have been a most interesting process and a very worthwhile experience as well.

Given my interest in the part that the unconscious plays in the life of people, I was most interested in the direction that we should make every effort to identify and put aside any conscious and unconscious biases.  I was very pleased to see the emphasis placed on this by the judge – who I was very impressed with throughout the trial.  However, I am also aware that to actually be able to identify and deal with the part the unconscious plays in our motive and actions is a very challenging thing.  I don’t know how this could be handled in a better way in the judicial process than it was.  For instance, I can’t see the jurors engaging in dream analysis during the trial process or practicing active imagination.   Most people are unaware of the role that unconscious energy plays in their waking lives.  It would be interesting to do a study on dreams of jurors both during and after the experience of service on a jury.

That is about all I want to explore - at least this time.   May you be blessed to have a positive encounter with the legal system on your journey.