You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Where I live, in the Pacific Northwest, there are company towns, where the entire population of a town works for one company, usually logging companies. They don't have any option to exclude jurors for working for the company the accused also works for (if they're a local). I believe that the reason the jury system works so well is that jurors are indeed zealous to ensure the rights of the accused are respected by the legal process, that the prosecution does effectively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt, or to conserve the rights of the juror by voting not guilty if the prosecution does not meet that bar. People are indeed zealous of the felicity of their village or town, because their family depends on it, and don't want criminals to prey on themselves, or their friends, family, neighbors because that threatens themselves and their family. Juries are motivated to judge truly and justly because of these factors.
You've painted a very specific picture here. You come from the perspective that having a vested interest is THE requirement for judging over a case. Now, this interest is here the locality and familiarity as well as the dependency on a company which feeds the town.
I agree that what I would call determination (not zeal) to judge fairly may take place. IF the logging company IS seen as a valuable enterprise for the whole area. But the question would be, what point of accusation towards a single townsperson could such a company make, arguing that its stability or very existence was in jeopardy?
To be in jeopardy as a company through a damaging act by an individual, I can only imagine that it would be a case of a powerful individual (journalist, for example) who tries to damage the logging companies reputation. Then this journalist must have a lot of power (which usually is not the case if you are acting individually, but collectively). Since badmouthing a company by individuals in private usually does not harm the company in total.
View more