Volume 7, Issue 40
In a criminal case, the prosecution and defense counsel present evidence to convince the jury of their point of view on what the facts actually are, and, once established, what said facts mean. From the opening statements to the closing arguments, the state’s lawyers and the defendant’s lawyers are confident, aggressive, sincere, and, at times, dramatic in their presentations. The jury must, at times, navigate complicated forensic evidence and expert testimony that seem to be in absolute opposition in the findings on the same set of facts. How then does a jury of laypersons reach a conclusion fairly applied?
They are given jury instructions by the judge on what the law is. The jury’s obligation is to come to a consensus on the facts. Then, the instructions will help guide them in the process of rendering a verdict. The law determines the guilt or innocence of a person based upon the facts. These instructions provide guard rails for how the verdict is to be rendered in the jury’s deliberations. Many defense lawyers will say that the most important thing the jury receives is the judge’s instructions on the law.
In a democracy, the public’s obligation to render a verdict on an election is similar in concept to a jury trial. During a campaign, two opposing sides present evidence, based on their viewpoint of the facts, for the proper course of government in the future. The public receives this information, digests it, and does the best they can to come to a conclusion on who or what to support. The electorate navigates the complexities of the issues presented, and somewhat like a jury when it retreats to the jury room to take a vote of the jurors, citizens in a democracy retreat to the sanctity and security of the voting booth and cast their ballots for their verdict on the future of their country.
Our democracy in America today is in gridlock and approaching dysfunctionality. Why? Because we lack leaders who will impartially issue instructions to the electorate for guard rails. Without guidelines on principles of protocol and purpose, the electorate is abandoned in the decision-making process.
In the past, the United States has been blessed with righteous men and women who put principle before party or special interest agendas. They set boundaries that were not to be violated, as established by the Constitution, on liberty, freedom, due process and the rule of law. Such leaders emphasized the vigilance demanded for restraint of government and the people’s rights codified in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. A jury would be lost without the guidelines of the law. The facts they determined would mean as many different things as there were jurors. Without a definition of principles to be maintained, the jury would be incapable of rendering a just verdict fair to all parties involved.
And so it is with a democracy.
What happened to America? Historically, the United States was blessed with leaders who felt a spiritual connection to the founding principles of our country. At times, the national press held our leaders accountable to a universal moral code. Now the press is ideologically cause-driven, often acting as judge and jury without benefit of the facts. In the past, the national political parties represented a national consciousness of political ideas documented and manifested in a party platform. Candidates for president have failed to refer to these platforms and have all but ignored the general propositions they advance. Therefore, as spokesmen, they have basically made the national parties irrelevant. Activists today, on the left and right, struggle to define simply what it means to be a conservative or a liberal.
The issues today are complicated. The national budget, immigration, health care, national defense, and foreign policy are virtually impossible for the electorate as a jury to be at peace within a comprehensive analysis of implications of proposed policies. And, it was never intended that they would have to do so. The United States is a Republic. We elect leaders in whom we have confidence to make decisions based upon the facts and reflecting our philosophical viewpoints for a future that, in our opinion, are in our children’s best interest. There are, in fact, facts that are not made available to us. The President makes decisions on national security based on information that he and his National Security Council alone review. Congress writes and passes laws on issues that impact our everyday lives, advised by experts who the public does not have the opportunity to cross-examine on his or her opinions.
Alexis de Tocqueville explored a concept intellectually that has been coined “soft despotism.” He argued that democracy in America would be challenged by the axiom that people want to be governed by leaders who will act in the people’s own best interest, not government’s best interest. By this he meant that citizens want to go about their everyday lives experiencing the benefits of freedom and liberty, trusting and giving the authority of government to leaders who will protect that freedom and liberty. His warning was that it is also the inclination of governments to impose regulations and controls on the people to maintain power and purpose of individual agendas. Soft despotism is that process where the population becomes overregulated as serfs of the state without actually initially recognizing the danger of the situation. Only by carefully electing righteous, unselfish leaders, who are servants of the people, could the Constitution of the United States, and the democracy it governed, survive.
The purpose of a democracy is not to result in a society wherein all citizens think alike. The purpose of democracy is to result in a society wherein people of different opinions live peacefully together. Striving for common purpose, by and through equal pursuit of happiness, protects liberty and freedom. Differences of opinion cease to be threatening. Respect of differing views energizes the pursuit of common goals.
What is required for democracy to work are leaders who believe in freedom and are cognizant of soft despotism. Democracy requires leaders who will sacrifice their talents and potential for the good of the citizens’ rights.
America is desperate for leaders in whom the people have confidence. They seek shepherds whose existential purpose is to maintain the security and peace of the sheep.
At the beginning of a jury trial, the lawyers will conduct the process of voir dire. Literally, it is French for “speak the truth.” What the lawyers are attempting to do by questioning the jurors is to determine their worldview and whether they have any prejudices, based upon the facts to be presented, that would render them incapable of finding for the plaintiff or defendant, regardless of the facts or the law.
In analyzing the issues facing America, each citizen sees the problem or opportunity through the lens of their own worldview. This process begins with one’s definition of the purpose of life. Differing viewpoints originating from different worldviews are natural. What is necessary for democracy to survive is to apply one’s worldview of facts within the guard rails of eternal principles governing the dignity of humanity.
The President of the United States is likely facing impeachment. I delayed posting the Nuttle Report one day to understand Senator Schiff’s position on President Trump blocking EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland from testifying. Schiff’s immediate reaction was to declare the President’s Executive Order as obstruction of justice. That position of statement is acting as judge and jury without all the facts or the due process of law. This morning, he amended the statement to be possible obstruction of justice. At least now, evidence can be presented on the basic foundation of law that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
The American public now finds itself in a partisan world, governed by creed-driven activists who seem to have lost confidence in the public’s judgment as a political jury.
What can be done about American democracy in crisis?
Every citizen must take it upon themselves to carefully formulate their own worldview. The great democracy of America is still the world’s hope. Believe in it. Have faith in the compromise of the ballot box. Discuss the issues with your neighbors. And, when you retreat in privacy to vote by secret ballot, vote for leaders who believe in freedom and the people’s right to govern themselves.
In these times, political instructions to the jury will depend upon each and every one of us to hold ourselves accountable for guard rails of the electoral decision-making process. We are now responsible to each other in the election of righteous leadership.
Our future depends upon the citizens demanding righteousness in government.
Our democracy depends on respect for each other’s viewpoints.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?