Knee-Jerk Reactions

The federal government has just announced plans to end peremptory challenges during the selection of a jury. It is easy to see why. It has been argued that if there had been some jury members who were Indigenous  during Stanley's  trial over the murder of Colten Boushie, then the outcome would have been different. It is a lovely argument and the government's plan may do something may end some of the angst amongst Indigenous people over the clearly discrimatory criminal justice system. It shouldn't.  The government is using faulty logic that at best will do nothing and at worst may make things worse.

There is no reason to believe that if somewhere around a third of Stanley's jury had identified themselves as being Indigenous that the outcome would have been different. If in fact the jury were as racist as seems to be implied, the jury just would never have come to a decision that they all could agree on. If all of the jury had identified themselves as Indigenous, then Stanley could have argued with some justification, that he was not tried by a jury of his peers. Furthermore there is no guarantee that the jurors selected at random would contain anyone self-identifying as Indigenous. It could be quite likely that trials where there defendant was Indigenous that all of the jury would be white and the defence counsel would have no way of trying to reshape the jury. It quite frankly feels as if someone is trying to fix a problem by addressing one example of that problem.

The most viable long term solution must be to increase the size and makeup of the jury pool. All citizens need to be better educated into their responsibilities to participate in juries. It is far too easy to "get out" of jury duty. Employers and other institutions need to be encouraged to create process by which people are encouraged and supported to participate.

When I was doing my graduate degree, I was selected to be in a jury pool. I was excited. l have spent a fair amount of time in courts supporting people and I wanted to be part of the process. But none of my professors were particularly interested in looking at ways that I could participate and still complete my assignments. I then called up the appropriate office - told them I was too busy with my school work and they said fine. I was struck off the list. It should have been harder for me to absolve myself of my responsibilities. Creating excuses to get out of jury duty, like stretching the rules about paying income tax, should not be a national pastime.

Communities that have historically felt disenfranchised from our legal system may need special training/assistance to more effectively participate in the process. It would be well worth our tax dollars to provide that assistance. While it may be appropriate to limit peremptory challenges, we should perhaps ensure first that the jury pools are representative of the general population.

There is a long list of indicators that our legal system does not treat all people the same. Many of them are well researched and understood. Fixing one little problem is only window dressing designed to appease some of the public. We should not be fooled into believing that the problem is solved.