There can be no compromise where justice is concerned. A majority decision is not always the right answer. Think of a lone voice on a jury that may be the difference between a person being given the death penalty or being acquitted. This example plays out in a wonderful movie I saw once called "12 Angry Men". There are a few versions of this movie, and the one I like best is the remade for TV movie filmed in 1997 and starring Jack Lemmon.
Majority decision is not always the right decision
When we hear the word democracy we think of majority, as it seems fair to base decisions on what most of a populations wants. And if most people believe something, we tend to believe this must be right. Majority is the basis of much of society today, the basic premise being it's not possible to keep everyone happy, and by using majority as a measure of fairness we are reasonably sure most of the people will be satisfied most of the time. The majority vote governs many decisions that are made throughout the world, and this starts within families, to organisations, to countries. But is a majority decision always the right decision? A majority vote does not apply to life and death decisions! What of a facilitated process of collaboration and considering alternative options?
Making a stand for justice
Majority decision is not always the right decision
When we hear the word democracy we think of majority, as it seems fair to base decisions on what most of a populations wants. And if most people believe something, we tend to believe this must be right. Majority is the basis of much of society today, the basic premise being it's not possible to keep everyone happy, and by using majority as a measure of fairness we are reasonably sure most of the people will be satisfied most of the time. The majority vote governs many decisions that are made throughout the world, and this starts within families, to organisations, to countries. But is a majority decision always the right decision? A majority vote does not apply to life and death decisions! What of a facilitated process of collaboration and considering alternative options?
Making a stand for justice
I take the example of the movie "12 Angry Men". The movie is about twelve jurors deciding the fate of a teenager accused of killing his father. Deciding the fate of someone in this case is serious, as the outcome may decide whether the teenager is given the death penalty, or is exonerated as not having committed the crime and is not guilty. In the first few minutes of deliberation the jury votes to see how many people think the defendant is guilty. Eleven jurors raise their hand. Only Jack Lemmon votes not guilty. When asked why he votes not guilty, his reply is that he cannot give someone the death penalty without talking a bit about it first. "Well there's always one" someone quips. Jack Lemmon says "I just want to talk". "I don't know if I believe his story or not. Maybe I don't" and a bit later "We're talking about a person's life here." One of the other jurors played by Tony Danza scoffs "You couldn't change my mind if you talked a hundred years" and Jack Lemmon replies "We can't just decide in 5 minutes. Suppose we're wrong". He stands his ground. He does not get riled up, he debates calmly and without emotion, and is swayed only by facts. And he replays some of the evidence that was given forward as key testimony, proving this key evidence wrong. Jack Lemmon as juror says his intuition told him something was not quite right with the case, that it was too easy to convict the boy. He mentions that there are examples of people who were convicted and given the death penalty and years later after their deaths other people have stepped forward and confessed to these crimes. What an injustice! What price life that sometimes we can give no thought to the person on the other side of an outcome, just thinking of whether or not we are right or wrong. According to the other jurors, there was an eye witness that saw the teenager do it and heard what happened, but Jack Lemmon states "You see, sometimes the facts that are staring you in the face are wrong". Some jury members get almost abusive when people change their minds, clinging on to the guilty verdict and sometimes for the wrong reasons, as one juror is only interested in making his ball game in time. But slowly one by one the jury members change their mind until more are voting not guilty than guilty. The tide turns. When the jurors walk out of the room all are voting not guilty. One lone voice can make a difference!
In conclusion
If you are that one person that has a different view in a group, make sure you make your voice heard. Maybe you are seeing something everyone else does not see, an injustice hidden from view perhaps. Try and try again until you get your point across. Of course if it's not that important a point then let it go, but if a critical outcome hinges off something and you are able to change a decision, don't let it go. Make a stand for justice. You might be the only person that does. You might change someone's life. You might change the course of history.
Links
In conclusion
If you are that one person that has a different view in a group, make sure you make your voice heard. Maybe you are seeing something everyone else does not see, an injustice hidden from view perhaps. Try and try again until you get your point across. Of course if it's not that important a point then let it go, but if a critical outcome hinges off something and you are able to change a decision, don't let it go. Make a stand for justice. You might be the only person that does. You might change someone's life. You might change the course of history.
Links
- Go to Part 1: Leaving A Legacy
- Watch the movie "12 Angry Men" on YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment