Today I received a jury summons in the mail. My mind immediately jumped to all of the media coverage of the jury selection process in the case of Jerry Sandusky. Fortunately, I don’t live near where Jerry Sandusky is being tried for sexual assault, however I couldn’t help but think of what it would be like to serve on that jury.
I’ll be honest with you, I know I couldn’t be impartial. I would want to be, because I know it is the just and legal thing, but as a mother of two little boys I am pretty sure I’d hurdle over the partition and try to physically injure him. It’s not logical, but it’s in my gut to exact some sort of animalistic revenge after reading all of the press coverage when the scandal first broke.
In the search for potential jurors, lawyers have dismissed individuals for knowing too much about the case and for having already made up their minds, or for having close ties to the university.
But something caught in my throat when I read this passage in The Washington Post last night:
When one juror mentioned her 6-year-old son, defense attorney Joseph Amendola asked her whether having a “small boy” would influence how she evaluated evidence and formed a decision. The woman responded that while she is always concerned about her child’s safety, “I know with my son, there are a lot of sides to a story.”
“So I guess what you’re saying is that you recognize kids don’t always tell the truth?” Amendola asked.
“Absolutely,” she said.
So many elements of this quote bother me. First, one story many sexual abuse survivors, especially male survivors, have in common is that of trying to tell someone what happened to them and not being believed. I can’t help but think of this juror’s 6 year-old child and hoping that his innocence remains intact throughout his childhood, because I fear that woman like this—and I admit I do not know this juror, I am basing this entirely upon one snippet of a conversation—may not believe her son were anything (God forbid) to happen to him.
Now, I know that there are instances where children have lied or made up stories against grown-ups, usually at the urging of another adult who is using this child as a pawn, but even in those cases the children are victims of one sort or another and need help.
And that reminds me of why it is absolutely necessary to have jurors who are capable of being impartial in cases of child sexual abuse… and maybe I could were it a case I knew nothing about going into it.
But I know that I could not serve on the jury in the Sandusky trial, were I asked to.
How about you? Could you be impartial? Do you think it is possible to find an impartial jury in this case?
In a related story, the courts decided that the victims of Sandusky’s alleged abuse would not be allowed to remain anonymous during the trial, as reported by abcnews.com.
Although we have the right to face our accusers, should these adult survivors of childhood abuse be protected from the general population knowing their names?
About Joanna Schroeder
Joanna: I don’t think I could be unbiased or impartial mainly because I have read too much about the case and at least a decent size percentage of what I have read probably isn’t true. That is my problem with high profile cases, too much info is given out , alot unsubstantiated rumour at best. This taints the jury pool.
While I’d like to believe I could remain impartial, I would bet against myself if I were a gambler. While I have no children of my own (and never will) I have a very hard time listening to stories of child victimization. That is one jury summons I’d seriously consider portraying myself in a manner to specifically get myself kicked out of the jury selection.
I try to read the best out of people’s comments, mostly because I would go insane if I didn’t. I take to heart her saying that her child’s safety is important, and am deliberately choosing to believe that when the ‘kids lie’ part comes up, she is underestimating how she would feel if it happened to her own children.
Also:
[I] Although we have the right to face our accusers, should these adult survivors of childhood abuse be protected from the general population knowing their names?[/I]
That is a hard decision. Ultimately, I would have to say that they should retain their anonymity. I myself believe that anonymity should be kept in court cases with a sexual nature because of how intimate that part of someone’s life can be, and because of how disastrous an accusation can be. Sandusky should also have also retained anonymity (since it is still an accusation), but two wrongs don’t make a right at this point.
Could I be unbiased? Yup!
Would it stick in my craw? Yup!
But, if you accept that you live in a democracy, governed by laws – well it’s a price you pay!
Then again, I’m glad I’m not going to be a juror in the case. The rate of mental health damage to jurors from such cases is shockingly high! Stress – Anxiety – PTSD. I’m well defended from dealing with people with PTSD and abuse, but many others will be defenceless.
Jurors suffer trauma in gruesome cases, scientists warn – Telegraph
Just google “Jury Trauma” to find the rest!
I may be told of for saying this, but Amendola is playing to form – It’s what sociopaths do! It’s all media circus and he’s loving it! Warhol and his 15 minutes of fame! It’s terror tactics – and as one person said to me long ago “First I was abused over and over – and then the courts did it all over again”!
If by unbiased it is meant the ability to sustain a reasonable doubt given the current level of evidence (that I know of) then I would be unbiased. Though I think any definition of unbiased would be subjective and arbitrary. I would need to know more details about this case than I know right now. The truth is rarely pure and never simple. There is an entire Wikipedia article on day care sex abuse hysteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria The recent movie Capturing the Friedman’s left me convinced that while some details of the case against Friedman were correct that there was also and incredible amount of fabricated evidence against him as well. Documentaries such as the Thin Blue Line prove that there are many people out there who have no compunction with lying when it comes to helping the prosecution as all three witnesses for the prosecution flat out lied.