*This is part of the A to Z challenge for April.
It seems to me that I am consistently confronted with the question of whether or not justice was met in any news story. Was the verdict just?
I recently served on the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is different from regular juries in that we didn’t decide whether a defendant was innocent or guilty; instead, we decided if there enough evidence to bring the case to trial. It seemed to carry less weight. We did not feel we were responsible for sending an innocent person to jail, or letting a guilty person go free to commit the crime again.
Serving on the Grand Jury was a very educational experience. I learned that there are some pretty heinous people in my small community. I also learned that people can be brought to trial for some things I would consider trivial. Of course, I won’t go into details as that would be illegal. I swore an oath not to share what happened in the Grand Jury.
Still, the experience made me wonder. It is illegal to have drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, stolen goods, and all sorts of things I did not even know were illegal. It is illegal to be in a car with those things even if you did not know those things were in the car.
Yes, I knew I could be found guilty of association if I am somewhere that a crime is taking place; I just did not realize how frequently that happens. Or, maybe I was just innocent to the fact that so many people committing crimes use ignorance as a defense.
Anyway, the question for today’s post, following the theme of “What do you believe?”, is -do you think you would get a fair decision if your neighbor accused you of stealing their lawn mower even though you are certain your neighbor said you could borrow it? Would the Grand Jury decide that there was enough evidence to bring you to trial?
*Note, this is hypothetical as there was no such case brought before us.