Juries

 Juries Level the Field

 

As I read the many and conflicting opinions on the Rittenhouse verdicts, I think some historical perspective might be helpful.

 

Centuries ago in England, from where we derived our current legal system, guilt of criminal activity and punishment was decided by the monarch or local lord of the manor. Due to the whimsy of these proceedings and lack of community input, we developed a jury system where guilt is first decided by a jury of one’s peers. In criminal cases, the jury must be unanimous in its verdicts, both guilty or not guilty. The burden of proving guilt rests with the state. Later developments included the idea that guilt of a criminal offense had to be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence adds another layer of protection, as does the right to remain silent and not be compelled to incriminate oneself. Double jeopardy protections prohibit a second prosecution after a not guilty jury verdict. In assault and homicide cases, once a claim of self-defense, defense of others or defense of property is raised by the accused, the state must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It is very hard to prove a negative, i.e., that the accused’s belief that deadly force was necessary is not reasonable. 

 

All these protections were put in place in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights found in the first ten amendments to that founding document to equalize the playing field between the individual accused and the power of the state.

 

Many of those offering their opinions as to Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence appear to have put themselves in the chairs of the monarchs and lords of old, thinking only they have the correct view of the law and evidence. Those banding together to usurp the jury’s role and supplant their verdicts with their own seek to impose mob rule to decide Rittenhouse’s fate. That is not how our system works or should work.

 

While not perfect, the jury system and constitutional protections afforded those accused of crime have served us well over time. Does the right to claim self defense need further definition in situations like those into which Rittenhouse inserted himself? It certainly does. That is the job of our lawmakers. Do laws regulating when and where people can carry firearms and what firearms can be legally carried need reform? Undoubtedly, they do. That too is the job of our lawmakers. Does systematic racism have an impact on our criminal justice system that needs to be rooted out? Yes, it does and again our lawmakers must act to make it so. We can accomplish those laudable goals by working to elect reasonable, educated, and intelligent people who do not jump to unwarranted conclusions. 

 

Will some take the not guilty verdicts and seek to subvert them into a license to kill peaceful protesters? Probably, but those taking this view mistake what the verdicts actually mean.

Not guilty verdicts in a criminal case do not mean the accused is wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. They merely mean that the state has failed to carry its burden of convincing all 12 jurors that he was guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In our headlong rush to pronounce judgment on Rittenhouse, let us focus on what needs fixing and not demolish a system meant to protect us all from the power of the state.