Trial by Jury

Progressing through *The Brothers Karamazov* I was startled to hear a jury being selected. Tsarist Russia has trial by jury? Turns out it did, for some crimes, for a little while, as part of Tsar Alexander II's reforms in the 1860s, shortly after freeing the serfs and ending with the 1917 revolution. This law review article answered a lot of my questions, though being over twenty years old it still leaves me wondering how the revival of trial by jury is going these days. 

Anyway, you can hear the skepticism of the upper classes as the jury is seated--what can these muzhiks know about the passions and motives of a (sort of) aristocratic Karamazov? Well, everything, of course, because crimes are committed by humans for human reasons, and what we need of the jury is to simply be human beings. Which brings in Chesterton's great defense of exactly why the right to jury is so important: 

Our civilisation has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light upon that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things that I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round.

Interestingly, while jury nullification (i.e. the unavoidable ability of the jury to refuse to convict a person even though the case against them is proven, because they disapprove of the law) is a hush-hush or lunatic fringe concept in American law, it was explicitly authorized and stated in Russian trials. Yet despite that, and despite a presumably higher historic degree of antagonism between the government and the people, acquittal rates in Russia were always similar to those in the US, which suggests that perhaps we will not unloose anarchy if we talk about it.  

My practice does not involve many jury trials, none criminal, but I have conducted or assisted with a few. From what I have seen, it is quite true that it is impossible to impress the nuances of legal concepts upon a jury. No matter how carefully explained, they will have no comprehension of burden of proof or causation. But they will very seriously try to understand who is in the wrong and to be fair, and in the end that comes out as close as we could ask for. 

On a lighter note, the miniseries Jury Duty provided a goofy but surprisingly heartwarming look at our judicial system. The premise is that a single person gets what they believe to be a legitimate jury duty summons and is seated on what appears to be a real jury. Only everyone--judge, attorneys, litigants, and all the other jurors--are actors. (The judge is also a retiring judge, so the legal process itself is fairly accurate.) The actors then provide increasingly absurd hijinks yet, through it all, our random juror remains committed to trying to give the litigants a fair trial and make a just ruling. 

The Phantom Tollbooth

 Last winter someone was asking in a Facebook group on reading for more books like *The Phantom Tollbooth* and neither Bookworm nor I could come up with any. There's really nothing like *The Phantom Tollbooth*. However, on further reflection, although it would completely skew anyone's expectations of either book, what *The Phantom Tollbooth* is most like is *Pilgrim's Progress.* It is a *Pilgrim's Progress* of the mind. The zany characters and situations are not merely a series of puns, they are the embodiment of ideas, turns of phrase, paradoxes. And it is, of course, a moral journey: from ignorance and indifference to wisdom and curiosity. 

I am afraid that will convince no one to read it, or the people who do read it will find it not at all what they were expecting. It is also a hilarious, delightful, relatively easy read. It has been one of my favorite books since I first read it at an age so young I no longer remember. It was definitely the most formative book of my first decade of life. As a child for whom abstract knowledge came more readily than the often overwhelming world of the senses, it convinced me that the real world was full of wonder as well. 

Other Books:

*Atlas of a Lost World* by Craig Childs. G. K. Chesterton writes in several places with great humor of the folly of archaeologists and anthropologists imagining "primitive man" (as the term used at the time) as some utterly alien being full of incomprehensible behaviors instead of (whether separated by time or geography) people very much like us with customs no stranger, when you stop to think about it, than our own. Fortunately I think this is one area where the prevailing mindset has improved, and this book was a terrific example. The author writes of various archaeological discoveries related to the arrival of humans to the Americas in the Ice Age, and intersperses those with his personal camping and travel experiences (on foot or by boat) among landscapes that might resemble those of the Ice Age. It's a wonderful exercise of the imagination, vividly portraying the courage, curiosity, and skill must have taken to survive in a world of megafauna.  

*The Summer Book* by Tove Jansson. This is a deceptively simple book, about a little girl and grandmother experiencing summer on a remote island in the Gulf of Finland. That sounds rather saccharine, but it is not. Grandmother is not growing old gracefully and the little girl is as contrary and unpredictable as any real child and the simple life close to nature is undertaken with the casual indifference of an earlier era when it was perfectly normal to throw your trash into the sea. There is Father, too, but he is a middle-aged person who spends all his time working or fishing. It's up to the very old and very young to experience being human.

*The Brothers Karamazov* I've almost made it to Dmitri's trial. I really don't think much of Dmitri but I also don't think he did it. Dostoevsky is certainly deft about exploring the labyrinths of the human mind: though everyone is a bit over the top, especially the women, they are over the top in recognizable ways. 

*Songs of Willow Frost* by Jamie Ford. This is the current book club selection, so I am finishing it even though it's not the kind of thing I like (but it is definitely the kind of thing that winds up picked for book clubs so apparently a lot of people do like that kind of thing.) It's a notable local author who provides well-developed stories illuminating local history. I just don't really read to deal with realistic family problems and personal calamities, that's what I deal with all day. But I take it like medicine and then I go read something like:

*Oath of Swords* *The War God's Own* *Wind Rider's Oath* *War Maid's Choice* by David Weber. These are the books you read when you want some big damn heroes with great big swords to stabbity stab some even bigger nasty demons. While the main character, Bahzell, a verrry reluctant paladin, is a joy in any circumstance, I'm also a big fan of his fellow paladin Dame Kareitha, who has a sword divinely blessed to let her know when documents are forged and who settles boundary disputes with some deft legal expertise combined with using the sword in its more traditional fashion. 

*What Feasts at Night* by T. Kingfisher. I never know what to say if people ask if I like horror. I don't find horror particularly horrifying for whatever reason, so reading for pure adrenalin does not work for me. It's a book, nothing's going to eat me. If there's interesting psychological development, though, horror doesn't put me off. This series, by T. Kingfisher, tends to have a rather botanical twist and features frequent appearances by Beatrix Potter's aunt, a noted mycologist.