The idea of influencing the jury just doesn't pan out here. Every day, people are influenced by TV, movies, the news, gossip, books (heaven forbid!), etc. - and a large number of those influences put minorities (racial, religious, sexual, etc.) in a poor and often scandalously stereoptypical light. If we believed most of what we see, we'd think that every arab is likely to be an evil muslim terrorist, every african-american is likely to be a crack-smoking gang banger, etc. These media images are far more of a risk in influencing a jury than a historical image in the basement of the courthouse. Just look at the unfortunately spreading practice of screening the jury from the sight of an alleged gang member defendant because of the fear the jury supposedly has of being identified and harmed - does that not send the message to the jury that there IS a reason for such fear, and that the defendant IS certainly guilty, of SOMETHING even if it is not exactly the crime charged? Why, that's not only a message being sent by the media or by a historical exhibit in an area where jurors might pass, but one being sent directly by our own government, in the courthouse, directly to the jury trying a particular defendant. Hurray for double-standards!
If we follow the Opat + certain list-member line of reasoning that this image might influence a jury, where should we allow or ban such images? Within 50 feet of the jury room? Within the courthouse? Nowhere between the dozen or so parking ramps or bus stops where jurors often travel to and from, which would essentially ban it from half of downtown Minneapolis?
Besides, what exactly is the influencing message of the image of several lynched african-americans in Duluth? Does it say that any particular race is bad? No. Does it say that it is impossible to get a fair hearing in the justice system? No. Does it say that juries should judge an african-american defendant with more sympathy? No. If it has any message at all, it is a warning about jumping to conclusions and potentially destroying lives based on factors OTHER than the facts presented properly by the prosecution. That sounds like a terrific message to me - for all races, religions, sexes, etc.
- Roxana Orrell, Mpls
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 02:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 20
From: "Pamela Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Grow on Black History exhibit
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:35:15 -0500
OR, move it upstairs to the main lobby area. Why hide it in the basement,
anyway? Besides, jurors watch television and go to movies, too. They
should not be shocked, nor should it influence their decision one way or the
other. If they are sitting jurors on any cases, they ought to have a sense
of what is right and wrong already. Woe to all of us if they do not.
So, in other words, I am still not buying Opat's excuse. If he, or anybody
else, buy's it, I have some swamp land for sale here in Florida. Comes with
a pet alligator that doesn't bite. Much.
Pamela Taylor (Tampa)
TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
