Mary Barnett Did NOTHING Wrong

       

          I know what you're thinking right now, "You're one sick bastard if you don't think Mary Barnett did anything wrong! What's wrong with you?!" Now I'd like to relieve you with the fact that I don't agree with what the title states, but it does serve as an important lesson on the power of words. This title, whether it worked or not, was chosen to infuriate you; anyone who understands the trial knows that Barnett is a terrible person for leaving her child alone to die and the words I have chosen to describe the situation provoked a specific emotional response from you.
          In this lesson, we have learned that words are extremely powerful. We learned that although a group may be presented with the same words, (in this case, they were "on purpose," "kill," and "planned") everyone in the group is likely to have varying interpretations or connotations of the same words. This demonstrates how the words chosen to describe a case or action, can be a deciding factor when seeking justice. Due to this, we also learned that it is important to choose your words wisely, especially when trying to persuade others. A single word chosen to explain one's argument was enough to either make another member of our jury agree or disagree with your claims. Considering things such as context and phrasing was vital in making sure you could effectively persuade others and make your points easy to understand.

          The group dynamics on both days were extremely different from one another. The first day had a lot more variance of opinion and had many group members change their opinions several times throughout our arguments. And that's exactly how we can describe our interactions on the first day: arguments. Instead of having reasonable and orderly discussions on the first day, we yelled over each other and little progress in reaching a verdict was made. Many of us changed out opinions several times on the first day and we seemed to be working against each other at times instead of working as a team. The second day was much more professional. We began by using a speaking totem (just a pencil; sounds cooler if you say totem) until we felt like we were able to handle not using it. After that, we were able to maintain order and had much more rehearsed and organized discussions. The second day was also much easier than the first in the sense that everyone in my group agreed that Mary was not guilty, aside from one person who was later convinced otherwise. I will admit, although yelling at each other on the first day was fun, the second day was better by a long shot in the sense that we made a lot more progress and were actually able to reach a verdict.
          Although it didn't necessarily make me angry, my biggest frustration was group members relying on morals to reach a verdict. In a jury, you must only use reliable evidence and facts to make your decision; if there is any reasonable doubt on evidence, it isn't valid. I also can't say I don't understand why they were using their morals. Many of us who said Barnett wasn't guilty of second-degree murder knew that she was responsible for her child's death and wanted to see her punished, but that isn't how our judicial system works. It can be difficult to go against your own morals, especially on something as serious as murder, but you must leave your opinions and assumptions at the door when you arrive for jury duty.
          I'm not exactly sure whether or not I'm satisfied with the results. Fact-wise, Barnett isn't technically guilty of second-degree murder, so she is able to walk free. On the other hand, I feel that she could be guilty of manslaughter or possibly first-degree murder. Inside, I want justice for her child, but with the charges given, that isn't possible. Sometimes it just is what it is...