The 6th Amendment to the Constitution, states that the accused shall be tried by “..an impartial jury.” Yet, the history of court cases within America, demonstrates historically, that impartial juries, seems to be in many a case, the exception, and not the rule. After all, when it comes to human nature, we are prone to have a preconceived nature about many things, of which, not too surprisingly, when it comes to criminal trials, a significant amount of people, pretty much are biased in their predisposition, as a matter of course. For instance, in many racist communities, past or present, those so accused that are of the unfavored race, that thus face a jury of exclusively the favored race, know that the result for them, is going to be almost for a certainty, not one of their liking. So too, those that come from poor socioeconomic levels, who are thus judged by a jury, who live on the other side of the tracks, are going to often be in a rather problematic situation.
When it comes to criminal justice, the makeup of the jury, that decides upon the guilt or innocence of those so being accused, is quite obviously of immense importance to the outcome of a given case. The question then that needs to be asked, is does the American court system, do all that it could reasonably do, to make sure that the jury is impartial, as well as being a fair reflection of the community, at large. In other words, communities of people are in the natural, not typically completely homogenous, but rather are heterogenous. This thus signifies that an impartial jury, at its foundation, must then be made up of a fair reflection of all of the adult people that are part and parcel of that community, from rich to poor, from black to white, from one religious persuasion to another, and from white collar to blue collar. A jury then made up of a fair diversity of what that community actually represents, would not necessarily be an impartial jury, but it would, at a minimum, reflect the diversity of that community, which would probably reflect fairer jury decisions.
When it comes to achieving an impartial jury, it is vital to impress upon those that are its jurors, the importance of them, not having preconceived notions of innocence or guilt, without first taking into fair consideration the testimony and the circumstances of the case, so of, to come. Further to the point, it isn’t often, that regular folks, are placed in a position in which their judgment has a legal and meaningful impact upon another – which is why jurors need to be reminded that they have a duty to render their decision based upon the actual facts of the case, as a form of reasonable service to the community that they are a part of. Those then, that are good listeners to the facts of the case, and are careful in their deliberations, so of, have done their good part to be impartial, and all those that do not do such, are partial, and have thus failed to be just and true.