How jury deliberation ties into politics and democracy

What do juries have to do with deliberative democracy? Here at the Jury and Democracy Project, we regularly hear that juries are an administrative curiosity, unconnected from the more central concerns of democracy, government, and politics.

In our view, juries have a great deal to do with how we interpret and enforce laws. They open the judicial branch in the U.S. and many other countries to direct citizen involvement–and empowerment–in a way that legislative and executive branches don’t.

But occasionally, one can see more clearly the nexus of juries and politics. Two recent cases highlight this. A federal jury just convicted a county commissioner in Florida on corruption charges:

U.S. Attorney Robert O’Neill told jurors White had abused his position, promising assistance to people who gave him money. He said after the verdict that they upheld the principle that elected officials have a duty to represent all the public, not just those who pay. “We cannot have public officials acting corruptly,” O’Neill said afterward. “It perverts our system of justice and the democratic process.”

Though O’Neill gets the lead quote in the story, but it’s a remarkable thing to have a corruption verdict handed down not by a vindictive and suspect rival public official, but instead by a cross-section of the lay public. It’s one of the geniuses of a jury system that it makes the public the judge of public officials. And just one verdict like this can help rein in future electeds, who get from the jury a better sense of what the public will and will not permit from its officials.

The second example we pull is a case still underway. This time, a Brooklyn assemblyman stands trial. The same basic idea operates here, his fate is in the hands of the lay public, as assembled in the form of a federal jury. As this post goes up, the jury has sent the judge a note that explains it is at “an impasse.” The author of the note added, “Be back tomorrow.”

For an evening, the jurors will go home to their families, their homes, their communities. They will not discuss the trial, but they will reconnect briefly in their regular, daily lives before trying again to reach agreement on how to address an allegation of public corruption. In this way, the U.S. keeps the sensibilities of a lay public connected to the enforcement of the laws governing the government itself. Once again, it’s just another clear example of how jury deliberation plays a vital role in the larger democratic process.


About jgastil

John Gastil is Head and Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University, where he specializes in political deliberation and group decision making.
This entry was posted in Deliberation on juries, Social/political impact of juries, Verdicts juries reach. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to How jury deliberation ties into politics and democracy

  1. theresa7 says:

    Hi Everyone!

    If you have ever served on a jury, will you PLEASE take my survey which is part of my master’s thesis? It’s not very long and I would be so appreciative. Also, if you know anyone who has served, if you could forward them the link, I would be SO grateful! Thank you!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s