Twelve men...

Reading an essay by G.K. Chesterton. An essay called “the twelve men”. In this writing, Chesterton, makes the very interesting point about the function, and the requirements of a Jury in our court system. That it is very interesting of the fact that there have been those, who have touted the need for a "professional juror". That it would be a good idea to have a fully trained Jury. Just like we have teachers, because trained teachers, teach better. Or professional photographers because trained photographers take better pictures. Or perhaps you would consider lawyers who see trials all the time, and are very professional about it! Chesterton however makes the point, that when they (lawyers) see a defendant on the stand… they see what is very normal, and common to them. When a teacher sees a classroom full of students, or even an individual student, they see what is common and every day. Or a photographer takes one family portrait after another to the point where the families all start to blend.

Chesterton points out that when something very important is on the line, that is the time when you don’t want a jury that is “professional” just going through the motions, and who see what they see every day. Rather, you would want a jury that is not used to the “process” so they are looking in, as opposed to living in their everyday environment. They, the untrained jury, see the weight of a matter. Simply because the dispute (if for no other reason) has risen to the level of a courtroom. Where there are plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, and a judge. Not to mention all the others that might be present. Reporters, the court bailiff to make sure things remain in order.

In his Essay, the notion of paradoxes comes into play, in his defense of keeping the very valuable untrained jury. He lists four or five of them, but the most important one is the paradox that says..."the more a man sees a thing, the less he sees it." Meaning the more a person studies a thing, and understands a thing... the more likely that person is to understand less of that thing's significance, in terms of everything around it.
He also relates an untrained Jury, to a person who goes to a ballet, for the first time. Or we might imagine, seeing an incredible play. One that moves us to joy, and tears throughout. If we went to that same play every night... that play in our mind, would eventually, over time lose some of it's significance in our own lives.

I am also reminded of something that I first heard quoted by Ravi Zacharias, which was an ancient Chinese proverb that says... "If you want to know what water is, don't ask the fish." 'And the reason is, the fish has never really made an analytical, or a comparative study of the water, it's the only environment in which it lives.'

G.K. Chesterton finished his essay with these words:

"Our civilization 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 cataloged, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up is specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing'round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity." - G.K. Chesterton