Lstreadingnotesapr5

The readings for today's class were very interesting. They involved a defendant's right to obtain a jury of his or her peers. The most interesting story entitled "A Jury of Her Peers", has left a lasting and somewhat confusing impression on what I believe to be a jury of ones peers and whether achieveing a jury of ones peers is always the best way to arrive at justice. In the story "A Jury of Her Peers" a woman is being held in an assumption that she strangled her husband to death while he was sleeping. After reading the story It seems quite obvious that she did. But, it also seems quite obvious that her husband beat her and treated her rather unpleasantly. None of previous sentance's facts are established in the short story by Susan Glaspell but it is easily assumed. Several men turn about the house where the strangled man was found and aquire no evidence pointing twords his wife as the murderer. Two of their wives while looking for clothes and items of comfort for the accused woman find a strangled bird inside of a box used to store sewing supplies. Both of them in a seemingly instinctive manner decide not to reveal this evidence to their husbands. After reading the story it can be assumed that the wife was ill treated for some time and after her husband strangled her bird she strangled him. While I would never measure a bird's life with the same tool I would use to measure a man's I can see why someone who had assumingly been tortured for some time may snap at the intentional killing of their pet. The intentional disregarding of the dead bird by the wives can be viewed both a serving and not serving of justice. In their times as this story took place in the early 20th century this may have been believed by them to be proper. In a search for justice it was not the proper road to travel but it arrived at or near its intended destination.
Today's main question is, How is a jury of ones peers decided? While it is obviouisly not fair for a woman or a black person to be tried without some members of the jury also being females or persons of color, having a jury comprising of nothing but females to try a female would also not be fair. A jury of one's peers is best described if it can be imagined that the person travel to the nearest mall or large social gathering place close to where they live, but not so close that only people very similar to them frequent, it must be far enough away that many different groups of people can be seen. When the person gets their they should walk to the place where the most people are at and just look at everyone there, those are their peers. Some are very similar to the person who just arrived their and some are different but they are the closest to what can easily be envisioned as peers. America is thankfully becoming more diverse and hopefully with different groups of people intereacting more often than in the past the question of who is one's peers, will be a little easier to answer in the near future.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License