File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9711, message 61


Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 18:23:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>: M-I: Class and jury composition
From: farmelantj-AT-juno.com (James Farmelant)


--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
To: James Farmelant <farmelantj-AT-juno.com>
Subject: Re: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>: M-I: Class and jury
composition
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 18:55:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9711021818.A3482-d100000-AT-login>


Yoshie's thought about jury underpayment promoting upper class bias on
jury panels is probably wrong. I don't know that much about the class
composition of juries, but it's my understanding they tend to be full of
pensioners and housewives--people with time to spare. Partly this has tpo
do with underplayment, of course.

> I
> feel that Yoshie's comment about the selection pressures on jury
> selection
> are dramatic but quiet evidence of class bias of a very harmful nature.
> This would explain why 9 of the jury were women and why the jury was so
> well qualified. There was an over-represention of those who would have
> every sympathy with Mrs Eappen, all the more bitter in that they felt
> they
> could not be out working in well-paid jobs because of the unreliability
> of
> stupid nannies.

I suspect that what happened is that the defense dropped the ball on jury
selection. It may have been in part from the general stereotype that
better educated people are likely to be more liberal and sympathetic to
defendents, women too in many kinds of trials. As fara s I can tell all
this stuff is voodoo. It may make a difference in particular cases, but
ion England you have to take the first 12 out of the box,
disqualification
for cause excepted, and their criminaln convictions rates are similar
(about 95%).

> 
> This morning the BBC appears to have obtained a scoop. One of the
jurors,
> no doubt under pressure of how to look her peers in the face at dinner
> parties, has broken silence. (I cannot get my head round this system -
in
> England breaking jury confidentiality is punishable).
> 
Not here.

> She said none of the jury though that Louise had deliberately tried to
> kill
> Matthew. They convicted because everyone should know that shaking a
baby
> can kill it.
> 

In that case, of course, they did not follow the jury instructions. The
elements of murder two include intent. They convicted her of intentional
murder for negligent or reckless homicide. These are punishble by maybe 5
or 10 yrs--I don't know the Mass. Crim Code. It's a travesty. Underlines
the low opinion lawyers have of juries and the doubts a lot of them have
about the efficacy of jury instructions.

>But what of the class implications of the argument that *everyone*
should
> know that shaking a baby may kill it? This sounds to me like class >
justice. 


However, Chris' discussion is rather condescending in its presumption
that workers don't know you can hske babies by killing them. And--I
didn;t follow the trial--wasn't there evidence that the baby was slammed
as well as shaken?

> such a system. After all why did they not notice the almost certainly
> painful wrist injury for 6 weeks? 
> 

Speaking as a parent, my daughter actually broke her arm as a baby and we
didn't notice it for sever days, and then only when it was called to our
attention at the child care center that she was favoring one arm. I don't
think of us as particularly negligent parents.

> It sounds to me one and the same with  Mr Eappen's impact plea
describing
> her son like Winnie the Pooh. Even allowing for a very traumatic
> bereavement (for which let us assume consciously, and not take for
> granted
> for reasons of class bias, that she had no responsibility at all) this
is
> a
> very idealised statement. Babies are sweet and vulnerable, but also
burp,
> vomit, get angry and retaliate. The idealised picture where the
> intelligentsia wants life perfect while the working class clears up the
> shit both literally and metaphorically, is a class picture and class
> justice.
> 

What _is_ this crap? Sure, I can understand getting mad enough at a baby
to shake it death. I am sure it happens all the time. What that has to do
with class naything beats me. Meanwhile, who are you to shit on the
parents' grief? I put aside the question of whether the defendent should
have been convicted, as I don't know enough to have an opinion. But thi
sis just callous and dumb.

> It is a pity that Justin Schwartz with his career in the law is, I
think,
> not subscribed to this list. I would be very interested in other
examples
> of class bias in the legal system in addition to the strong jury
> selection
> bias that Yoshie has drawn attention to.
> 
The law is full of class bias. Where do you want to start?

--Justin



--------- End forwarded message ----------


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005