The public service of being a juror (on any case but particularly on a very difficult case like a homicide involving a child) is not really given the respect it deserves. Thankfully more awareness and advocacy is leading to improvements as far as counselling resources and other accommodations. But the overall concept demands that a person put his or her life on hold while they are forced to personally become part of the worst events that have happened in the community.
The judge and lawyers will regularly make decisions wherever possible to limit the amount of gruesome evidence that will be presented but it is simply not possible sometimes. And in any event, jurors are required to listen and process the witness testimony while every other member of the general public can just ignore the media coverage and block it all out.
The constitutional right to a jury in serious cases necessarily means that citizens will be randomly selected to shoulder a huge burden on behalf of everyone else. Not to diminish the respect for others like first responders, but those individuals (as with the lawyers and judges and clerks and sheriffs) at least have to varying degree chosen to be dealing with these cases. Jurors are not allowed to say no merely because they would prefer not to serve.
Alpha_Q has a perspective that only 12 people on the planet actually could have and in large part those 12 people cannot even talk about their experiences to debrief. Without question the community owes a debt for such public service.
The only quarrel I will take up is that Ms Sanders is known to be one of the most respected appeal lawyers in the province. There is likely not a practicing lawyer who has conducted more criminal appeals than her and the court as a whole respects her frank and candid approach. It is unlikely even if one assumes the argument will be rejected that her legal argument about the inability of the police to have got a warrant will be seen as spurious.
Either way, I respect the viewpoint and the discussion.
|