A person cannot be objective or consider things in an objective manner. Every juror steps into the courtroom with pre-existing ideas about the people/person on trial. It's a narrative they've already written based previous interactions and conversations and subconscious messages. When the lawyer steps up to stand, they are not delivering an argument that will be objectively considered, no matter how much we like to believe that's what happens. Instead, it is a game of playing on the pre-conceived narratives of who is on trial. They either have to convince the jurors the narrative they've held as truth all their life is false, or simply ensure this narrative is not destroyed during the trial. Before they stepped into the courtroom, the jurors had a narrative in mind of who the policemen were. The narrative is constructed by previous interactions with police and what they've been told all their life about who police are. As Gil Garcetti said, the image of police is that "I'm telling the truth and I'm here to protect you." As white adults, the jurors' interactions with the police were likely not terribly unpleasant and certainly not violent. Immediately after the trial, when the jurors are being attacked by angry mobs and "obnoxious" reporters, it was the police that are trying to get them to safety. The police didn't have to create a new narrative, they simply had to find the audience that believes in the narrative. So, the trial location was changed to ensure the jury was all white.
"You want to believe in the officer, because they are there to help you, the law-abiding citizen, because most jurors have not had contacts with police - if they have it's a traffic ticket or they did a sloppy job investigating their burglary but it's not enough that it sours them on the police" is how Garcetti put it. Now compare this narrative with the experiences we hear of interactions between police and minorities all the time. Violence, accusation, and fear are the words that come to my mind when thinking of these stories. These are such different worlds! And the first narrative seems much more pleasant. It's understandable how someone would want to hang on to the feeling of consistent protection. To the jurors, even if it meant there would be some angry mobs, at least they can hold on to the feeling of a protective authority.
I completely agree, especially with the piece about how much easier it is for the Police man then the minority. The judge wants to believe the police officer was in the right partially for his own security. If we can't trust those "protecting us", who can we trust? Great quotes as well!
ReplyDeleteEmma,
ReplyDeleteReally great way to look at it! Although it was the jurors who got heckled and harassed, were they really the ones to blame? If they had only had positive experiences with the people whom they have only known to be protectors of the peace and the lawyer advocating for the officers presented a convincing case, why should the jurors be blamed instead of the system that allows such a thing to happen? In this specific instance, the jurors are the physical representation of allowing evil to roam free and in this they make easy and obvious targets; However, I believe the correct target should be the system that allows this kind of a biased jury to hear a case like this, or better yet, the system that creates a society of violence itself.
Even though you haven't gone to jury duty yet, you probably know that there is a whole process for selecting jurors: eliminating people based on their potential relationship to the criminals or crime (I once got dismissed from a jury because I taught in the neighborhood where the crime had occurred--this was when I still taught in Detroit). Each legal team also has a certain number of jurors they're allowed to dismiss for pretty much whatever reason they want. and it really does play into your point that "they simply had to find the audience that believes in the narrative." The goal, ideally, is to find a jury of metaphorical blank canvasses, but that's practically impossible these days. There is a lot of nobility in the concept of a "jury of your peers," and yet the concept of "one's peers" doesn't always play out. Part of the reason military cases are tried in military court is so that the jury is made up of people in the military, who presumably understand the environment in ways an outsider couldn't. It makes me think about how our jury selection process works and can be a better vehicle for justice.
ReplyDeleteWhen you said "the police didn't have to create a new narrative, they simply had to find the audience that believes in the narrative." it really stood out to me because I think this is a really interesting idea. The police have that luxury as part of the badge. This goes back to what Audrey was talking about and how as a whole, it is the justice system that is flawed. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts!
ReplyDelete