The message is clear and felt. We have the ability in this class to communicate ideas in the way we feel most comfortable and able. It may be through Zoom or threads or the discussion space in canvas. Similarly we can construct our own ideas as to the fairness of the jury as the jury is the one who interprets the fairness of the single trial that they engage.
Seems to be a version of metaphysical anti-realism where reality in part mind-dependent instead of mind-independent, which is the more traditional philosophical view. I agree, and think this realization should cause us to dramatically rethink our institutional understanding
I think, for example, that when we think about jury nullification, its easy to see the positive uses (in our minds) for it because it's how we would use it. However institutionally, there are certainly uses of nullification that are bad results. on the institutional level its less clear that its a good mechanism despite knowing that if we as individuals were on a jury we would want it at our disposal, and have a conception of what that looks like.
The institutional way in which we come to determine truth seems to be constantly fighting the individual i&i truth that we all pursue. Through suppression of jury nullification, voir dire practices, jury instructions, etc., our system tries to curate a collective truth, rather than allowing for different individual truths in dispute resolution
I'm not sure I understand the prompt.. On an individual level, I think its clear that our experiences shape our reality and perceptions of truth. On an institutional level, especially in the legal profession, I think we search/strive for a fabricated universal truth that we construct and call it "objective".
For me, the concept of I&I is oneness with one's self and one's brethren, meaning that to find truth is to find mutual understanding. I don't believe this translates well to our legal system because there, truth is adversarial and is focused on who's side "wins" the argument. Institutional understanding does not come from oneness, but preys on otherness.
I&i's attempt at recognizing the more sensory part of us and the more rational part are not halves of the same whole, but interrelated wholes in and of themselves is key to understanding jury. The difficulty of deciding issues of fact on feeling and then applying those feelings to law is encapsulated by the concept. This struggle, this seeming contradiction, is best left to a group of people that do not have to put their judgment into writing and can instead simply deliver the final result of this complicated process in one or two words. Furthermore, this process, which is subjective, should only result in someone going to jail if the facts are such that twelve I&Is all think the defendant should go to jail. Hence the need for a unanimous verdict of 12.
I interpret this class and the I&I concept as highlighting the interconnectedness of all beings. We discussed from the first day how juries and criminal law are responses to a disturbance in the community.