For serveral classes, we have been discussing the matter of responisiblity and the difference between a perpetrator and pawn. Yet only breifly have we discussed the jury - those who decide the fate and punishment of a perpetrator.
The Nuremberg trails were held to punish hundreds of high ranking Nazi officials involved in the Holocaust. Similar to the Versailles Treaty, the four allied powers (America, England, France, USSR) and winners of the war governed the trail without any neutral or axis influence (. Another case happened in South Africa where after a segregation law was dismantled, all those who felt vicimized by the law could tell their feelings and believes to the perpetrators of the legistlation. For participating, the perpetrators were given legal immunity, but as punishment had to listen and feel the emotion of thousands of victims (http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/legal/act9534.htm).
As you can see there are many ways to assemble a jury and jusdge a case. Ultimately, the jury is responsible for the outcome of the case, thus making the assembly process paramount in any trial. I'm curious to hear what you guys believe is the best solution to this problem... should it be the winners? the victims? switzerland? who should decide the fate of any war criminal?
8 comments:
To make the the jury totally unbiased (which would be only fair), I think that it needs to be comprised of people who are distant from the issue. In the case of Nuremburg, If victims are jury members, then they will for sure vote against the defendants. If other perpatrators of Holocaust crimes are jurors, then they would probably side with the defendants. Choosing someone who doesn't have a previous stance on the issue would make the trial more fair. These people would most likely side with the victims because of the inhumane treatment the suffered.
Nice picture BJ :)
I agree with Aileen with choosing a distant or neutral jury. However, if they are distant, how would they know the events, facts, and experiences of the genocide or crime? There should be a qualification by informing the jury with unbiased sources, because the jury may not know the whole story and could be victim of propaganda, like the victims could try to get the jury to empathize. Who would be able to present the situation in an unbiased manner so that the jury could truly decide what the punishment should be for the perpetrator?
although I do see the benefits of using individuals completely removed from the situation, I think that in the case of jury members in a trial concerning genocide, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find individuals who were completely removed from the situation.
I think it would be preferable to have a mixture. Some individuals should be from the "losing" side, others from the "winners" and some from the victims and some from countries that were not as involved. I think by creating this mixture the jury will be better able to fairly access the case.
Sorry to post again, but I don't agree. If you have a certain number of victims or family members from the Holocaust and a certain number, as Tal puts it, of people from the "losing side" then the side with the most jurors is going to win. How would a Holocaust survivor ever vote to not prosecute one of the perpatrators? it just doesn't work if you have people from both sides because it would create controversy and the decision would be based purely on numbers.
Aaron, in general jurors of any court know very little information about the situation beforehand. This is what makes them unbiased. Having an unbiased jury is what makes our legal system fair.
However, it is hard to avoid unbiased opinions in a court of law because both the prosecution and the defendants are trying to prove their points. The jury has the power to decide what/who they wish to believe, so I think that an unbiased jury is necessary. I know that Nuremburg was known all around the world, but pulling someone from Australia, for example, would be better than pulling someone from Germany just because they are more distant. When selecting a jury, the goal is to get it to be unbiased. Yes, the jury in Nuremburg probably did empathize with the Holocaust victims, but attacking emotions is one tactic that the prosecution most likely used.
Sorry to go off on all legal terms here, but both my parents are lawyers...
I agree with Tal, I don't think there could be a truely unbiased jury in the case of genocide. And the theory that you should have a mixed jury is good but like Aileen said it would go to the largest amount of supporters, or it could end in a stalemate. I think like everyone's said already, that you have to try and get a jury that's the furthest removed from the situation, but I think you'll always get a bias towards the victims (unless it's an anti-victim(ie semetic) jury)because most societies have moral codes that would punish genocidal behavior.
But you can't start from the assumption that the defendents are gulity; that undermines the whole process. People are saying that a jury will have to side with the defendents because no one likes Genocide, but the genocide is not on trial, what's on trial is wheather or not certain people commited genocide. Therefore it shouldn't matter who the jurors are, therioretically, because the defendents are supposed to be assumed innocent at the beginning.
exactly. whoever is picked to be the jury should enter the trial as unbiased as possible and hear the prosecutors' and defendants' perspectives. this alone should sway the decision of the jury.
i do think that the jury should not be comprised of any countries' leaders (winners, losers, switzerland). if this happens, the trial becomes very politically charged, and fates can be determined by foreign policy and international relationships.
I think Thom just proved everyone else's points. The jury has to be the furthest removed from the situation as possible and have the least prior knowledge about the trial. That's basically how they pick juries now. The lawyers want to make sure that the jury members have no emotional connections to or knowledge of the case which is why it is often so hard to find a jury for murders/crimes that have been publicized in the news. The jury has to essentially be approaching and considering the situation for the first time in an in-depth and serious manner.
Post a Comment