The jury: holding power beyond that one can bear

Catherine Choi

Contributing Editor

TW: Sexual Assault

In “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, Tom Robinson was put on trial for allegedly raping Mayella Ewell. Though it was evident that Robinson was innocent both to spectators and the presiding judge, he was declared guilty in a completely legal manner. Considering the time the novel is set in—when the Civil Rights Act had not yet been established—the Southern all-white jury was prone to predetermine African American defendants to be guilty before the beginning of the trial.

The fifth amendment in the U.S. Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Accordingly, in the U.S., six- to twelve-member juries are selected through a process that includes disqualifying potential members from participating based on a number of factors, including displaying bias. The jury then decides on a verdict after the trial. However, this system has a lot of flaws.

For instance, in the case of Tom Robinson—despite being a fictional story—bias significantly impacted the verdict. Even though potential jurors go through a process to examine bias and filter out those who are unlikely to hold a neutral stance throughout the trial, some biases may go unnoticed or may even be unintentional. Implicit bias is “a form of bias that occurs automatically and unintentionally, that nevertheless affects judgments, decisions, and behaviors,” according to the National Institutes of Health. Those with a skewed perception of race, gender, religion, political orientation or ethnicity—of which even they are unaware of—may end up focusing on the evidence that is in their bias’ favor, making it hard to make a thorough decision with a neutral stance.

CALIFORNIA from page 11

Due to limited storage space and an inability to fully capture and treat the water, most of the rain that fell flowed into the Pacific Ocean, rendering it unusable.

However, if California does not design and build storm water systems capable of capturing, storing and treating more of the rainfall, the state will be in dire trouble. The intensity of extreme weather and climate events will only worsen with time as humans continue fueling climate change.

Last month’s storms, for example, were record-breaking due to the effects of climate change. Their root cause was atmospheric rivers. Atmospheric rivers are streams of moisture from the tropics that form through the evaporation of warm ocean water. They typically deliver much of the state’s annual precipitation. As global temperatures rise due to climate change, the air is warmer and carries more moisture—resulting in the atmospheric rivers unleashing more precipitation. This year’s atmospheric rivers were further coupled with a bomb cyclone, which only increased their intensity.

Atmospheric rivers are not the only weather event strengthened by climate change. California—which usually oscillates between wet and dry periods—has dealt with drought numerous times in the past. However, the state has been in severe drought for nearly three years. The American West itself is in its driest 22-year period in over 1,200 years. The severity of the drought can be attributed to climate change; global warming increases evaporation on land, reducing surface water and drying out vegetation.

Droughts result in water shortages—California’s current crisis. Most state reservoirs are below their historical average capacity, with Lake