Onlookers critical of process, not jurors
I was sickened to hear defence lawyers Aaron Fox and Mark Brayford berating people for comments critical of the jurors in the second-degree murder trial of Gerald Stanley, including the comment by the federal minister of justice in which she said “We can, and must do better.”
Such references by Fox and Brayford are disingenuous at best.
I have heard no one express criticism of the jurors in this case but rather a process that would allow for a jury totally composed of Caucasian members.
I have no reason to believe that these jurors were not reasonable people who were trying to do their best in a difficult case.
Aaron Fox stated that those critical of the jury should “take some time to be in the shoes of that jury.”
Actually, as one who has lived and worked in rural Saskatchewan, I believe that I have “walked a mile in those shoes.”
And therein lies the problem. I believe that I, and most of the jurors in this case, can easily identify with the accused in this case, but have little idea of the life of the young Indigenous victim.
In the end, each juror’s decision, and judgment, (of which there are many) is affected by their life experience and the biases that are formed.
Thus, it should be evident to all that juries of a homogeneous nature do not allow for the critical discussion and thinking necessary for even the perception of fairness.
We have no reason to believe that a jury totally composed of First Nation members would not be just as “reasonable” as the jury in this case, however, great attempts were made in the courts to ensure that no such life experience found its way into this jury.
That is simply wrong and totally unacceptable.
I agree that “we can, and must do better!” Bob Hughes, Regina