T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

71

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 71, May 8, 2000
Nasty, Brutish, and Short

What Kind of Americans Sit On Our Juries?

by John Silveira
john@backwoodshome.com

Special to TLE

In the early 1960s the late Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale, conducted an experiment to gain insight into how ordinary Germans could have staffed concentration camps and sent millions to their deaths.

Here's how the test was set up: Participants were enlisted as "teachers" while others were enlisted as "learners". Each teacher was paired with a learner and the learners were to read a list of word-pairs. When the learner was given one of the words in a word-pair, he was to recite the other word. All the learner had to do was give the proper response, but if he failed, the teacher was to administer a shock. The shocks could be gentle, or severe. They ranged up to 450 volts. It was, to all appearances, a test to see how well the learners could learn with this "shock therapy".

But, in reality, the learners were not being tested at all. It was the teachers themselves who were being tested. The learning tests were rigged, the shocks were faked, and the learners cries of pain were phony. What Milgram wanted to discover was how willingly the teachers would administer pain. Most scientists didn't believe more than a small percentage of Americans would willingly inflict pain in such an experiment. What Milgram discovered was that, although some of the teachers did refuse to, many others -- fully 60 percent -- willingly administered shocks of greater and greater intensity and duration.

Why were they willing to overlook the "pain" they inflicted on the hapless learners? They did this because they wanted to please the scientists conducting the experiment. It was, in other words, to please authority.

Here's my point: As soon as the judge in a courtroom asks jurors if they are willing to bring a verdict of guilty, if the prosecutor proves his case, even if they, the jurors, disagree with the law, the judge is taking the position of the scientist (Milgram) who conducted the test; the jurors are now in the position of the "teachers". Now, if Milgram's percentage held true, and fully 60 percent of the population would bring a verdict of guilty even if they felt the law was wrong -- or evil -- then that would leave the other 40 percent to vote their conscience. Since it only takes one dissenting juror to hang a jury, the likelihood of a guilty verdict being administered for violation of a bad law should be negligible.

As a mathematician, I can calculate the chance that there would be at least one person on a jury of 12 randomly selected persons who would vote his conscience and stand in the way of Americans being found guilty of bad laws. The chances are about 458 to 1 that the average jury would have at least one such person. With odds like that prosecutors should find it so risky to try people for violating bad laws that they would cease to prosecute them. Legislators should then find it necessary to rescind such laws. It is what the Founding Fathers of this country intended and it was the way the court system in this country originally operated.

But here's the catch: Today, judges ask jurors, "Will you bring a verdict of guilty, even if you disagree with the law?" All prospective jurors who say they would not bring a verdict of guilty when they feel the law is wrong are systematically excluded from juries all over America.

Then, the judge goes on to extract an oath from the remaining jurors (an oath that is nonbinding, though most jurors don't know it) to bring a guilty verdict if the prosecutor proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt, even though they may feel the law is unjust.

What this means is that if you yourself are on trial, your fellow citizens who have been allowed to fill the jury box are the "teachers" in Milgram's experiment who are willing to inflict pain, at your expense, to please authority--in this case the judge. Furthermore, if you yourself are seated on a jury, it is because the judge has already determined that you are part of that 60 percent that is willing to inflict pain, even when you know it's wrong. How does this make you feel?


John Silveira is senior editor for Backwoods Home Magazine
http://www.backwoodshome.com
BACKWOODS HOME MAGAZINE
P.O. Box 712
Gold Beach, OR 97444
Phone: 541.247.8900
Fax: 541.247.8600
E-Mail: john@backwoodshome.com
Contact: John Silveira


Next to advance to the next article, or
Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 71, May 8, 2000.