Are courts really fair?

I am currently serving on jury duty. I have been called numerous times but have yet to serve on a trial. Though I have not been seated on this jury I am dangerously close to being chosen to serve. I do not feel that this is a bad thing; I am happy to serve because I have not yet had the opportunity.

I have now been sitting observing for the last two days. I have watched as the judge and the attorneys question the prospective jurors. One term that keeps coming up in the questioning is fair. Can you be fair in coming to a decision? Can you be fair in judging the participants? Can you set aside your prejudices and be fair in analyzing the facts of the case?

I have been sitting in the gallery as an observer to this point. I have not had an opportunity to answer. The judge encouraged the observers to pay attention to the questions and be ready to answer them should we have the opportunity to do so. I have had many hours to consider how I might answer to the subject of fairness.

I don’t like the word fair. I think it is a loaded word. In the framework that I believe the court is trying to align to the definition is impartial and just. In my experience there are often deep emotional connotations with the word.

It seems to me the court is asking if the jurors can be impartial in their interpretation of the facts that will be presented in court in deference to the law. To use the word fair, with its deep emotional resonances, seems like an attempt to guilt people into doing what the court would consider to be the right thing. In this circumstance the word fair feels manipulative.

Further, I think it is legitimate to question whether the laws in question in relation to this court case are fair. I do not know what laws will be cited. However, can a person who is not an attorney, who does not have knowledge of the history or context of any particular law, really adequately understand the laws they are interpreting? Can the fairness of said laws be adequately judged?

Perhaps. As I admitted earlier I have not served on a trial jury previously. I am not trying to avoid serving, though I am sure there are numerous valid reasons for either side to reject me. Given the chance to argue against my rejection I will inform them that it is my experience that makes me an excellent choice as a juror. If I am asked I will proclaim that I will be an objective juror, not influenced by anything other than the facts and the law.

It calls on me to think; can people called away from their normal lives be counted on to fairly judge legal technicalities? Is fair the proper word to use? Should we aim more for objectivity? Is all this a problem of me thinking too much? Perhaps if I get on the jury I will have better answers. Wish me luck.