Author: r.jones4

memorandum-docx

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine on the subject of democracy in Africa; and why many Sub Saharan African countries fail in their implementation of the ideals of democracy. I argued that democracy as a conceptual framework for individual participation and collective engagement for all and by all, has failed because those in power tend to apportion national resources for themselves, their families, and those within their circle of friends, and acquaintances. I used Liberia (West Africa) as an example. In 1980, seventeen enlisted men led a military coup to overthrow the existing government of William R. Tolbert. Indigenous Liberians (95% of population) welcomed the coup. They felt the time had come for a native son of the land to rule. President Tolbert who had been an Americo Liberian (Descendants of free slaves) was executed.

Until the coup, Americo Liberians ruled Liberia for 147 years. It was alleged that Americo Liberians allocated the country’s resources for themselves and members of their family. A new government led by  Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, and a ruling council was instituted. The new government promised inclusion, equal access and equal participation to all within its borders. The entire country was ecstatic. Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters thought God had looked upon their travails (like the children of Israel), and sent a messiah who would lead them to prosperity. But their jubilations were short lived, the messiah turned tribal. He organized sham elections and won by landslides. The master sergeant hunted and killed anyone that spoke ill of his government.

The government of Samuel Doe, while it lasted, went against every facets of Gastil’s concept of the democratic process of inclusion, participation, and enlightenment understanding. Another ruthless killer, Charles Taylor, later overthrew Samuel Doe and his government. Charles Taylor carried on exactly where Master Sergeant Samuel Doe left off

The movie, 12 Angry Men depicts prejudices, partialities, and positions often taken due to perceptions of others. Eleven of the 12 jurors in the movie concluded even before jury deliberations began that the defendant was guilty. Their decision (guilty verdict) was not based on the veracity of the facts of the case but on personal biases. One juror was utterly convinced that the defendant racial background was enough to render him guilty. He asserted that people of the defendant’s race had innate criminal tendencies that made them likely to commit crime. Another juror based his decision on witness accounts, which when considered is a fair point. But the accounts were not exhaustive or conclusive in the picture it painted, or the story it told. Juror 8, the only guilty verdict dissenter, and the only juror to questioned the defense counsel’s line of questioning; felt the defense counsel was not expansive enough in the defense of his client. He felt there were legitimate inferences that were not considered, such as the time of the murder, the murder weapon, and the accounts of the witnesses.

Speaking Rules

Speaking rules were adopted based on jury number. Voting by ballot was also agreed upon in principle. Each juror was given the opportunity to give a guilty or not guilty position. It became cleared after the first few jurors gave their positions that many were hinged on prejudices and biases.

Decision Rules

At the onset of the deliberations, the lead juror informed the other jurors that he was not going to set voting rules, rather, he would allow consensus on how voting should take place. After an agreed preliminary vote, the decision of the jury stood at 11-1 (guilty). Confronted with juror 8 not guilty votes, the jurors at this point all agreed that deliberating the evidences of the case was the best way of arriving at a consensus decisions.

Reasoning Evidence

Juror 8 was convinced that the standard of proof (Reasonable Doubt) was not surpassed to meet a guilty verdict. He reasoned that before passing a guilty verdict in a murder trial, all extenuating evidence had to be thoroughly looked at. Another point juror 8 raised was the degree to which the defense counsel represented the defendant.

Emotional Outlook of Jurors

Members of the jury emotional outlook varied. Juror 7 was distracted by a Yankee game he was scheduled to attend later that evening. He seemed in a hurry to vote guilty so he could get to the game. Juror 10, who appeared to have a cold, was adamant in his belief that the defendant was guilty because of his race. Juror 3 believed the defendant was guilty because boys the defendant’s age was capable of hurting their parents in physical and emotional ways. His position was premise on his relationship with his son.

Jury Composition

The members of the jury professional background varied. There was an ad executive, architect, baseball enthusiast, a watchmaker, a banker, etc. The composition of jury in terms of professional background was diverse.

Demographic Characteristics of Jurors

Members of the jury comprised of mostly Caucasian men. There appeared two men of European origin. The juror with knowledge of switchblade (Knife) usage, displayed understanding of what it is like to live in disadvantaged communities.

Leadership Styles

Juror 1 leadership style contrasted with the leadership style of juror 8 in one obvious way; juror 1 proposed a vote without thoroughly deliberating the facts or looking a little deeper at the evidences. He appeared convinced the defendant was guilty. Juror 8 felt the need to hear the opinions of his colleagues before reaching a consensus decision.

 

 

My name is Roland Maddy Jones. I am really excited to begin the next phase of educational career here at Baruch College. I hope to specialize in Healthcare Policy. I recently graduated from Lehman College with a Bs degree in Healthcare Administration. I have worked in education, social work and sports management. I currently work as a Waiver Service Provider for a childcare agency. I am of African descent (Liberia). I look forward to an engaging experience here at Baruch.