"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:12
Dr. Who (05-06-2023)
I got to wondering what the etymology of the word “jury” is, so I looked it up. It didn't say much besides it being a body of jurists, so I went there next. “Jurists” wasn’t much better, but it referred over to “justice” - see below.
.justice (n.)
mid-12c., "the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment;" also "quality of being fair and just; moral soundness and conformity to truth," from Old French justice "justice, legal rights, jurisdiction" (11c.), from Latin iustitia"righteousness, equity," from iustus "upright, just" (see just (adj.)).Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. ["The Federalist," No. 51]Meaning "right order, equity, the rewarding to everyone of that which is his due" in English is from late 14c. The Old French word had widespread senses including also "uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge." To the Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) the notion was of each thing in its proper sphere or serving its proper purpose; inequality of aptitudes and outcomes was implied.
In English c. 1400-1700 sometimes also with a vindictive sense "infliction of punishment, legal vengeance." As a title for a judicial officer, c. 1200. Justice of the peace is attested from early 14c. To do justice to (someone or something) "deal with as is right or fitting" is from 1670s. In the Mercian hymns, Latin iustitia is glossed by Old English rehtwisnisse
I found that to be more thought provoking, especially since the subway incident had been on my mind for awhile this morning. Particularly that it appears to me that there is a great deal of grey area in the situation, swirling around the concept of punishment or corrective measures if the letter of the law had been “broken” in some way. Assessment of threat, the action of restraint, the mistake of over-application of a taught restraint method, etc. In my opinion from what I read, I doubt there was anything but good intent on the part of the Marine, but he did kill a guy. If my opinion is correct, even if he made some mistakes, I don’t see that punishment is any kind of a remedy or solution that serves “justice”. But if he is just “let off”, based on technical legal considerations, there will be another revolt of sorts by those who feel that real justice should involve punishment.
I believe that the highest purpose for juries is to address these complexities, and render a reasoned and informed decision. I also believe that humans, being what we are, will probably not do a very good job of finding a solution (jurists) or accepting the verdict (public). That is a miserable fact of life that won’t ever leave us, until by some happy accident we find a way to wake up as a species.
I hope this helps in some way.