Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:07:45 -0700 From: spooner@mail.doitnow.com (Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer) Subject: [lpaz-repost] op-ed submission To: lpaz-repost@onelist.com
From: Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer <spooner@mail.doitnow.com>
BACKWOODS HOME MAGAZINE P.O. Box 712 Gold Beach, OR 97444 Phone: 541.247.8900 Fax: 541.247.8600 E-Mail: john@backwoodshome.com Contact: John Silveira TEAR SHEET REQUESTED No charge--Use freely
What kind of Americans sit on our juries? By John Silveira
What kind of Americans sit on our juries?
In the early 1960s the late Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale, conducted an experiment to gain insight into how ordinary Germans could have staffed concentration camps and sent millions to their deaths.
Heres how the test was set up: Participants were enlisted as teachers while others were enlisted as learners. Each teacher was paired with a learner and the learners were to read a list of word-pairs. When the learner was given one of the words in a word-pair, he was to recite the other word. All the learner had to do was give the proper response, but if he failed, the teacher was to administer a shock. The shocks could be gentle, or severe. They ranged up to 450 volts. It was, to all appearances, a test to see how well the learners could learn with this shock therapy.
But, in reality, the learners were not being tested at all. It was the teachers themselves who were being tested. The learning tests were rigged, the shocks were faked, and the learners cris of pain were phony. What Milgram wanted to discover was how willingly the teachers would administer pain. Most scientists didnt believe more than a small percentage of Americans would willingly inflict pain in such an experiment. What Milgram discovered was that, although some of the teachers did refuse to, many others--fully 60 percent--willingly administered shocks of greater and greater intensity and duration.
Why were they willing to overlook the pain they inflicted on the hapless learners? They did this becuse they wanted to (start ital)please(end ital) the scientists conducting the experiment. It was, in other words, to please authority.
Heres my point: As soon as the judge in a courtroom asks jurors if they are willing to bring a verdict of guilty, if the prosecutor proves his case, even if they, the jurors, disagree with the law, the judge is taking the position of the scientist (Milgram) who conducted the test; the jurors are now in the position of the teachers. Now, if Milgrams percentae held true, and fully 60 percent of the population would bring a verdict of guilty even if they felt the law was wrong--or evil--then that would leave the other 40 percent to vote their conscience. Since it only takes one dissenting juror to hang a jury, the likelihood of a guilty verdict being administered for violation of a bad law should be negligible.
As a mathematician, I can calculate the chance that there would be at least one person on a jury of 12 randomly selected persons who would vote his coscience and stand in the way of Americans being found guilty of bad laws. The chances are about 458 to 1 that the average jury would have (start ital)at least one such person(end ital). With odds like that prosecutors should find it so risky to try people for violating bad laws that they would cease to prosecute them. Legislators should then find it necessary to rescind such laws. It is what the Founding Fathers of this country intended and it was the way the court system in this country originally operated.
But heres the catch: Today, judges ask jurors, Will you bring a verdict of guilty, even if you disagree with the law? All prospective jurors who say they would not bring a verdict of guilty when(start ital)they feel the law is wrong(end ital) are systematically excluded from juries all over America.
Then, the judge goes on to extract an oath from the remaining jurors (an oath that is nonbinding, though most jurors dont know it) to bring a guilty verdict if the prosecutor proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt, even though they may feel the law is unjust.
What this means is that if you yourself are on trial, your fellow citizens who have been allowed to fill the jury box are the teachers in Milgrams experiment who are willing to inflict pain, at your expense, to please authority--in this case the judge. Furthermore, if you yourself are seated on a jury, it is because the judge has already determined that you are part of that 60 percent that is willing to inflict pain, even when you know its wrong. How does this make you feel?
John Silveira is senior editor for Backwoods Home Magazine, http://www.backwoodshome.com
SEND IN THE WACO KILLERS, by Libertarian syndicated columnist Vin Suprynowicz, has been selected as _Freedom Book of the Year_ by Free-Market.Net. Their review is located at http://www.free-market.net/features/bookofthemonth/
The best libertarian outreach tool in years. If you haven't read it -- you're missing something important.
Copies of "Send in the Waco Killers" are in stock for immediate shipment and can be ordered by mailing check or money order for $21.95 for each copy plus $3 shipping for the first copy ($6 Priority; $2 shipping per each additional copy) to Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127. Orders can also be placed (with credit card orders welcome) by dialing Huntington Press at 1-800-244-2224. Inquire about volume discounts. On the Internet, go to http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html, where credit card and bulk orders are also accepted, as s payment in silver, gold, and other hard currencies.
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/975/0/_/651531/_/954216314/
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-repost@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-repost-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-repost-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-repost-owner@onelist.com Web site: www.lpaz.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-repost