Joyce Carol Oates and the juror archetype

Joyce Carol Oates, "I, the Juror"

Joyce Carol Oates is an extraordinarily prolific American writer, who produced an impressive number of works that cover almost all of the literary genres. Apart from fiction, drama and poetry, Oates also authored many collections of essays, reviews and criticism. Her autobiographical piece, I, the Juror, relates one of her experiences as a member of the jury in a trial. The essay is basically a critique of the American justice system, as seen from the perspective of a personal experience. The author's main target is to assess the flaws and biases of the justice system, as revealed by the particular case she witnesses. Thus, the purpose of the writer is to try to draw on her personal experience as a member of the jury and give her perception on the system of justice. Her main discontents with the system are, first of all, the impression that the whole mechanism of a trial is absurd and that it resembles a nightmarish grinding machine, and then to note how the system suffers from institutionalized racism.

First of all, the effect of the essay comes from the fact that the author discusses one of her own experiences, attempting at the same time to project a view or an interpretation of the system of justice. The details of the trial itself are thus balanced by the comments and conclusions that the author gives throughout the essay. As the title of the essay indicates, Oates identifies herself with a common phrase used in court, so as to reveal the imports of playing the role of a juror for a trial. The work is forwarded by the author's brief discussion of the concept of justice, or by what she calls the "pursuit of an abstract principle of justice" (Oates). Justice in its true meaning does not seem to be a part of the proceedings for the trial that the author takes part in, and is, at most, an abstract word that does not find its reflection in reality. Instead of the pursuit of justice, the American system seems like a huge grinding machine, in which the actual facts are hidden behind the complicated and dull proceedings. The author thus testifies that she feels as a child in front of this monster machine that is the American system of justice, implying obviously that the individual can be very vulnerable when he or she is made to pass through the absurd system. The meaning and the facts themselves seem to get lost in the maze of the proceedings, of the contradictory testimonies and so on. Overall, Oates attempts to transmit the aftermath of absurdity that the trial leaves on her, because of the almost hallucinatory proceedings.

Moreover, Oates emphasizes the racism that seems to be inherent in the system at all its levels. She observes thus how racism permeates the selection of the members of the jury, the deliberation of the jury and their decisions related to the case in point, the testimonies of the witnesses and so on. The main purpose of the essays is to express the indignation of the author with the "brainless discrimination" (Oates) that she finds at the very core of the justice system. Her just and detailed observations focus on the games that seem to be played between the blacks and whites involved in the process. She does not doubt for instance that, provided the victim would have been a white woman, the jury "would surely have seen the charge differently"(Oates). Also, Oates notes that there is much more stress lain on a crime that has some interracial scope, as opposed to the crimes committed for example by the black people, against other black people, which are usually taken less in earnest and are not given so much importance. Oates' observations point thus to the deficient system of justice, where, absurdly enough, racial discrimination, which is one of the most poignant examples of injustice, is quite manifest. The victim's credibility in the case is also impaired because of the racist biases of the members of the jury. The core of the issue is clearly that justice is not really justice, and that the system seems to serve wholly different purposes than the establishment of fair judgment for all the parties involved. The system, the attorneys and the jury seem to be too biased in their assessment of the case, obviously swerving from the real purpose that any trial should have, that is, reaching justice. Racism which is inherently present even in modern, present-day society is even a part of the system of justice, as Oates observes. Instead of a fair outcome, the result of the trial is the huge confusion that accompanies the way in which the facts are presented for the jury and the public. Thus, Oates feels that playing the role of a jury member in a trial can be at most a very frustrating experience that can make one lose the faith in humanity and its values. Also, the author underlines the importance of the concept of justice and the way in which it loses meaning in the system. There is also a slight religious undertone attached to the main purpose of the essay. As an atheist, Oates does not touch the Bible when she has to take an oath a member of the jury, but the gesture has obviously a larger significance. The principle of justice according to the Christian religion is certainly not respected during the trial, and not even pursued by the ones involved in the process.

The conclusions that Oates draws from her experience as a juror are also very significant. She remarks thus that, in the absurdity of the system of justice the purpose, paradoxically, does not seem to be the establishment of justice in any way. When the whole of the proceedings in the trial seem to be biased and corrupted, it is very hard to decant the truth. Also, the fact that discrimination, as one of the most absurd and unjust attitudes can be found at all levels of the system, enhances the improbability of actually reaching a just verdict for a crime. As Oates sees it, justice is already a difficult objective to attain in the maze of the human affairs, but the biased and unrighteous system only makes the process more difficult.

Thus, Oates rounds the purpose she had established for herself in writing the essay, by questioning the right of the jury to give a verdict in this case. The jury itself, as Oates contends, should be judged in its turn by another jury, since the fairness of the process is doubtful.

The reaching of justness seems to be deferred continuously in this process, since the people involved do not act fairly and do not judge without prejudice and subjectivity, as they should.