1Detrimental Effects of Humanizing the Legal SystemWhile in theory the legal system is designed to serve as a mechanism for protectingindividuals from government, the jury system introduces an element of humanization that cancomplicate the system, introduce variables, and lead to inconsistencies in the level of protectionfor individuals. Juries selected from public juror pools are intended to take the bulk ofresponsibility away from government and lay it in the hands of the people. Rather than hangingat the will of a superior, a citizen’s fate is determined by the will of his or her equals. Alas, jurieshave proven to be unpredictable and at times ineffective at discerning truth in court cases. Theunavoidable subjectivity of jurors and their vulnerability to manipulation by lawyers results inlimitations on the system’s ability to protect.In Laura Gaston Dooley’s essay entitled Our Juries, Our Selves she speaks of the“previously unknown” legal restraints on 20th century juries.1 As the legal system strived to comecloser to providing a jury of one’s peers in court cases, it recognized the obligation to includeminorities, women, and other non-professional/non-expert members of society. Again, in theoryreaching this goal was admirable but led to unexpected results. According to Dooley, as womenentered the juries, judges began treating the juries as late nineteenth and early twentieth centurywomen were treated – not seriously. Since the introduction of women, the lack of credibilitygiven to juries results in condescension and a shift in power to the judge who “retains ultimateauthority to override jury decisions.”2 Furthermore, it effectively voids the former power held bythe jury.Since the introduction of women into juries, the legitimacy of the jury system itself hasbeen called into question. According to Dooley, modern juries now “enjoy far less prestige” and 1 Dooley, Lauren G. "Our Juries, Our Selves: the Power, Perception, and Politics of the Civil Jury." Before the Law.Ed. John J. Bonsingore, Ethan Katsh, and Peter d'Errico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. page 451.2 Dooley, 4512are “condescended to by other actors in the legal system.”3 The power of the jury is diminishedby their reputation for being “easily swayed by emotion” and “not given to hard logicalthinking.”4 While this assessment of jurors is certainly cynical it is not untrue. The averagecitizen is subject to all of his or her conscious and subconscious associations, assumptions, andthought processes. The legal system requires people to attempt shedding any traces of thesenatural human qualities, which rarely is possible.Charles R. Lawrence addresses these natural human inclinations in his essay, The Id, theEgo, and Equal Protection, and specifically how they affect race relations in a legal context. Hisideas transcend legalities concerning race and apply to all situations where a human mind tricksitself into thinking it can shed programmed associations and opinions. As “racial inequalityexists irrespective of the decisionmakers’ motives”5 so do other assumptions. A juror may have agut feeling or a subconscious inclination toward one verdict based on the race, gender, age, orsocioeconomic standing of the trial parties, or even the nature of the case, in spite of being ledlogically in the direction of truth.The concept of humanization undermining the logic and rationale that lead to validverdicts is exhibited in Reginald Rose’s stage play 12 Angry Men. Most of the jurors in the playharbor ulterior motives and presumptions that nearly lead them to a premature verdict, “Jurornumber ten” in particular exhibits the way in which humanized jurors can corrupt the efficiencyof the legal system. While prejudiced jurors must be removed from juries beforehand, it may beimpossible to recognize every one – and it is impossible to fully remove every prejudice fromevery juror. Lawrence reinforces this idea in his brief discussion of cognitive psychology 3 Dooley, 4514 Dooley, 4515 Lawrence, Charles R. "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism." Before theLaw. Ed. John J. Bonsingore, Ethan Katsh, and Peter d'Errico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. page 461.3claiming that many beliefs are so ingrained in people and culture that individuals may beunaware of them themselves6.As normal human beings and citizens, jurors carry these ingrained beliefs into thecourthouse. The defendant in the play’s murder trial is from the slums and while it is possiblethat each jury member is affected by this knowledge “juror number 10” isn’t shy about it. Hefrequently expresses thoughts such as “Look at the kind of people they are – you know them”7and doesn’t seem as concerned with getting to the truth, as he is with executing what to him isjust another slum criminal.Prejudice is a flaw in humans’ abilities to render unbiased opinions whether they are in aclassroom such as in Lawrence’s example or in a courtroom. Regardless of the defendant’s guiltor innocence, “juror number ten” has brought with him into the courtroom the human qualitiesthat prevent clear evaluations of trials and he can easily be considered “swayed by emotion”.Other jurors are subtler but also harbor motives detrimental to the system, whether it is a jurorwho is hasty to leave or one’s inability to recognize the seriousness of the situation.An additional complication that negatively affects the efficacy of jurors is theirrelationship to lawyers in a trial. Again, humanization is the process at work in limiting jurors’capabilities to accurately assess the facts of a case amidst strategic and controversial techniquesused by lawyers. As Jerome Frank observes in his essay on “Fight Theory”, “the lawyer aims atvictory, at winning the fight, not at aiding the court to discover the facts.”8 Not only can this beinterpreted to mean that the quality of the lawyer (another distinct humanization) may affect theoutcome of a case, but also that juries are being manipulated to look at a case not by the cold 6 Lawrence, 4607 Rose, Reginald. 12 Angry Men, copyright MCMLV, by Reginald Rose, Act 1, page 138 Frank, Jerome. "The “Fight” Theory Versus the “Truth” Theory." Before the Law. Ed. John J. Bonsingore, EthanKatsh, and Peter d'Errico. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. page 377.4hard facts but through the eyes of an attorney. The jurors’