I’ve been called to juries from time to time. Nothing major, and never really sat upon a panel, I’ve just run through the legal system every now and then. As I was reading this, memories of my experiences kept returning to me. I asked myself questions like “What would Aristotle have to say about the way jury trials work these days?” and “How much have people changed?” and even “I wonder if Rhetoric is required reading for lawyers?”
With our legal system the way it is now, it is perhaps not so surprising that there are strong correlations between how lawyers speak and how judges manage a courtroom. I specifically loved the section on the audience frame of mind. I noticed that myself, when I was in the courtroom. The defendants, the lawyers, and the prosecution seemed incredibly concerned with our frame of mind, even though the majority of us wouldn’t end up on the jury in any case. Just as Aristotle suggested, they dressed nicely and spoke in ways to give us a good impression. The very design of the room, both visually and acoustically, seemed to encourage contemplation rather than emotional outbursts. All this seems to appeal to an attempt to cause more logical conclusions.
But the jury of today seems to serve a different purpose than it used to. I swear that Aristotle seemed to think it was more important for a jury to choose on questions of morals and virtue. He seemed very concerned with such decisions (both politically and legally). On the other hand, the jury of today is mostly directed to judge on the truth or falsehood of witness testimony. Morals have been given over to the popular vote, as recorded and codified in our laws.
What would Aristotle say? Has our society advanced, and are our laws evidence of such? Or has our society devolved to the point where the individual is no longer held responsible for morals? Does our system choose cases on what is right? Has this, in fact, ever been the case?
