Critical Thinking in the Practice of Juror Revised

Student’s name
Teacher’s name
Course
Date
Critical Thinking in the Practice of Juror
As the serving on a jury is an extremely honorable mission, persons engaged in this process have to push themselves to the limits to carry out this duty in the best possible manner. A jury has to have a full command of critical thinking and be capable of distinguishing the truth from the false. Admittedly, even twelve experienced and wise men, who are very difficult to bewilder, can’t have an instant proper answer to the essential question of the defendant’s innocence. Therefore, they have to put aside unnecessary prejudices, consider all possible scenarios and doubt all arguments. On the top of that, this job requires the outstanding critical thinking and the soberness of mind, because under no circumstances may the jury take somebody’s side. They have to evaluate the probability of any situation provoking the crime as well as any justification for the person to let him or her off. Considering the clip we’re asked to watch; I can say that referring to the human being’s nature and the statements, such as «they can do anything, you’ve seen these kids as well as I have» is inappropriate and that’s why other jurymen denied it (Youtube, n.p.). Putting labels (for example “all children are liars”) may turn out to be extremely harmful and distract from the honest way of judgment. The principle “praesumptio innocentiae” considers anyone, accused of the crime, not to be guilty, until the opposite is proved.

Only weighing the facts helps shed light on such a complicated problem. As one of the characters notes correctly “it’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of things, wherever you’re running into the prejudice you always excuse the truth/ I don’t know what the truth is…but we have a reasonable doubt. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s sure”. Although we all tend to think in a certain way about some people and judge them even unconsciously, the cost of a mistake is too high, and negligence may destroy the entire life of the person. At the same time, thinking critically, the jury will be able to draw the objective conclusions from the set of facts (Diamond, 125). Having analyzed the defendant’s behavior and the circumstances of the case, they come up with the right solution. I have some doubts if the jurymen should apply their own experience to every new case since it also impedes the objectivity. This dilemma is believed to be very tricky, because on the one hand, serving as a jury requires wisdom which isn’t obviously inherited. On the other hand, judging the person by the previous experience brings as again to the prejudices.
Critical thinking is even more important in the work of a judge. For example, let’s consider effective court attorneys, leaving aside how they behave in their personal lives, or whether their client is guilty or innocent in fact, just notice how lawyers set out their cases in court. They use arguments to try to convince the jury and the judge in the suit of their client about guilt or innocence. They offer factual data and assess the value of evidence provided by the lawyers of the other party. They interpret the testimony. They analyze and evaluate the arguments put forward by the other party.
Now consider an example of a team of people trying to solve a problem (judge and jury). Members of such a team, in contrast to the adversarial situation in the courtroom, try to cooperate. Members of an efficient team do not compete with each other. They work together as colleagues to achieve a common goal. If they do not solve the problem, none of them will win. When they find a way to solve the problem, they all win. So, based on the analysis of only two examples, we can generalize something very important: critical thinking is thinking that has a goal (proof of some position, interpretation of the meaning of something, a solution of the problem), but critical thinking can be a cooperative non-competitive business.
Recurring actions, from which the experience and knowledge accumulate, occur in the profession of a judge, as in no other legal profession. But if a person has a rigid type of thinking, he or she may skip something new due to these recurring situations, dropping out of previous experience, which can lead to a judicial error in the application of the rules of law, in the evaluation of evidence. The flexibility of thinking is achieved through a critical perception of the situation, which should not be confused with a negative outlook on the world around us.
Taking a look at the history of the trial jury, we can notice that initially they just had to reflect people’s general opinion concerning the alleged criminals. The attitude was expressed, being based not according to the stable practice. Moreover, thinking critically the jury could and can find subtleties which make it possible, even to step back from the letter of law in favor of the spirit of the law. Considering any case as the first and the one helps keep the sobriety of thoughts and ideas. Otherwise, firm frames of the legislation can just hinder the justice to be administrated. Only putting aside the prejudices can lead to the objective and, what’s more critical, fair decision.

Works cited
“12 Angry Men – This is how you deal with prejudice.” YouTube, uploaded by Slinkycode, 5 March 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDhgR3p12w
Diamond, Shari. “When Ethics and Empirics have Entwined: A Response to Judge Dann’s Nullification Proposals” In Jury ethics: Juror conduct and jury dynamics, eds. John Kleinig and James Levine, 2006, Paradigm, 119–130.