The American Peer

“in order to form a more perfect Union…”

The founders and the constitutional framers understood and held dearly the fact that justice would by necessity be a hallmark of their new fledgling democracy, the ‘grand experiment’ of self-rule. There were many well reasoned arguments, memorialized within the federalist papers and personal correspondence, to secure the right of trial by jury, save for the crime of treason. Of particular note was the debate between those who wished to preserve the right of trial by jury but disagreed as to the locale of said jurisprudence. Many felt that transgressions that occurred within one state would need to be tried by a court in another state, as  it was believed that this would be the only way to protect the rights of the accused to as impartial a trial by his peers as would be possible.

Those who argued against this theory ultimately won because a trial of peers would have to be peers who knew the defendant yet who could remain impartial. Their belief was that knowing the character of the accused would help to bring about a more reasoned approach to the jury deliberations.

The example held that surely the man was guilty, but he was known to be a man pf principle and honor, and that his penalty must be weighed with that knowledge. A so principled judicial process would allow for justice to be meted out and allow the citizen to return to his community knowing that his sentence was imposed by a fair and impartial selection of his neighbors. Surely, they knew him to be a good man, but he needed to accept responsibility for his actions.

The desire to preserve the right to a fair trial was so important to the founding fathers that four of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, dealt with specific issues related to the rights of the accused - (the 5^th, 6^th, 7^th & 8^th).

The need to preserve the right to trial by a jury of ones peers has sadly become an almost vestigial concept in American democracy The implications over this trend have gone far beyond the citizenry as a whole looking upon jury duty as a major inconvenience and a responsibility that should be avoided and shirked at all costs. The loss of this fundamental tenet of democracy has become an infection on the body politic.

No man is perfect, and so we should hold his entire adult life of conduct in balance should he need to be judged by the community at large. Yet it is because of this fact that many talented and valuable members of the public opt not to serve in public life. Their political opponents will seize upon these mortal imperfections and attempt to paint the landscape of ones life with that one broad brush in that one distinct hue. The media will not attempt to give context to the issue but will merely trumpet the alleged crime. Once the negative narrative has been written, it is almost impossible to undo the damage to a career or a character.

We must make a stand and return to the principle of gauging the entirety of a life before passing judgment on a crime.

None of us would be able to publicly defend each and every aspect of our lives; a reasoned explanation is all the public deserves of those looking to serve.