|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SandorMarton-SecondPaper" |
|---|
Student Jurors and Liberal Education: A Case Study
-- By SamanthaWilliams - 12 April 2008
Introduction
“The university does not try to persuade [the student] that he is coming to it for the purpose of being liberally educated, at least in any meaningful sense of the term — to study how to be free, to be able to think for himself…. When the arriving student surveys the scene, he sees a bewildering variety of choices. The professional schools beckon him by providing him with an immediate motive: a lucrative and prestigious livelihood guaranteed by simply staying in the university to the conclusion of training. Medicine and law were always such possibilities…. If the student decides to take this route, liberal education is practically over for him.”
- Allan Bloom, “Our Listless Universities”
Allan Bloom’s writings on American higher education are not unlike the critiques considered in class. Bloom discusses the defects of universities in educating students, especially at elite institutions. As he notes above, these inadequacies increase as students pursue professional degrees. Bloom also contemplates the students who are part of this educational system; “Almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative” (The Closing of the American Mind 25). Bloom claims that students are moral relativists, intent on maintaining open minds and never declaring absolutes.
Although conventional wisdom asserts that attorneys generally oppose educated jurors, perhaps Bloom’s theory of university students would make them appealing; given certain circumstances, even criminal acts could be justified. This may describe the logic of the attorney representing Jennifer Johnson, a woman charged last year with permitting another to commit assault and battery upon a child under Massachusetts state law. While several jurors were eliminated, four members who were selected without questioning were Williams College students.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Jennifer M. Johnson
Jennifer Johnson was charged under the following code: “Whoever, having care and custody of a child, wantonly or recklessly permits another to commit an assault and battery upon such child, which assault and battery causes bodily injury, shall be punished by imprisonment.” Johnson was accused of permitting her boyfriend, Marc Wise, to abuse her 3 year-old daughter, Star. Star was found with bruises on her body, a black eye, a large bruise that covered the left side of her head, extending from the top of her skull to her neck, and a human bite mark on her thigh. Star’s emergency room examination also revealed a fractured collarbone, wrist, and a perforated eardrum.
Johnson claimed that she noticed Star’s bruises, but was unaware of any abuse. She testified that Star was a “rough-and-tumble” kid and that she did not seek medical attention because doctors could do nothing for bruises. The prosecution contended that Johnson knew about the abuse, but failed to intervene to protect Wise.
The Deliberation
Upon a preliminary poll, six jurors voted guilty and six were undecided. Three of the guilty votes belonged to Williams students. Several undecided jurors argued that to permit another to assault a child would require an acknowledged agreement. The lone undecided Williams student argued that Johnson may not have had adequate time to seek help.
The three Williams students argued that no agreement was necessary, since “permit” also means to afford the opportunity for or possibility of; if Johnson knew about the abuse but did nothing to stop it, she would be guilty. Even if Johnson was ignorant of Star’s abuse, the standard given to the jury was that Johnson knew and failed to act or any reasonable person would have known and would have acted differently. Furthermore, Johnson stated that during the time of the alleged abuse, Star and Wise were never alone. The Williams students argued that if Johnson were always present, it would be implausible that she had not observed any abuse.
Subsequently, all jurors conceded that they would not have believed that Star’s injuries were accidental and would have sought treatment. Each juror also acknowledged that Johnson must have seen or heard the abuse based how brutally Star must have been battered to sustain such injuries. One juror admitted, “She really hung herself with her testimony.” Yet, these same jurors remained undecided, instead arguing that Johnson may not have had the resources to leave Wise. Since Wise’s arrest, Johnson had resided in a homeless shelter. Several jurors argued these provided extenuating circumstances for Johnson’s actions – an argument not presented by the defense. This reflects Bloom’s hypothesis: “Perhaps they believe that evil deeds are performed by persons who, if they got the proper therapy, would not do them again – that there are evil deeds, not evil people. (Id at 67). However, it was a group of older jurors and not the students who subscribed to this belief.
It seems that the older jurors, especially the parents, could perhaps see their own guilt in Johnson. At one somewhat bizarre moment, several jurors admitted that they, too, had bitten their children. Johnson claimed that she knew Wise had bitten Star, though not as hard as medical records showed. Johnson stated that Star had bitten Wise in a tantrum and to show her that this hurt, Wise bit Star back. None of the Williams students found this explanation persuasive.
The Conclusion
Johnson’s conviction was undoubtedly affected by the student-jurors. After the trial, one student confessed that she was sure of Johnson’s guilt before deliberations and would “fight until the bitter end” for a conviction. This directly undermines Bloom’s assertions regarding university students. Though given the opportunity to promote equality, keep an open mind, or find truth to be relative, these students sided with absolutes. Even the one student-juror who did not fully adhere to these beliefs did not quite fall within Bloom’s description of the university student. Still, Bloom distinguishes between what students believe and what they say they believe. As he notes, “The danger [students] have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance” (Id at 25).This fear has created a necessity of open-mindedness and political correctness that seems to have only increased in law school. However, perhaps these appearances only veil absolutist attitudes that strongly oppose the moral relativism of past generations.
|
|