|
Judge not, Lest ye be judged
By
Shannon Agofsky Yet
does anyone among us ever truly take the warning to heart and refrain
from passing judgement? Each of us judges others on dozens, or even
hundreds of occasions, every day. We judge those we meet, all of them,
no matter whether we wish to or no. We judge a person's actions, their
mannerisms, looks, dress, the very words that fall from their lips. We
decide if they are truthful, trustworthy, or deceitful, we decide if
they are the type of person we would like as a friend, a business
partner, a lover. We draw conclusions about their personal,
professional, and financial backgrounds, their education, or lack
thereof, and about a thousand other things, often based on very little
overt evidence. Does
that make us bad people? Perhaps, or perhaps it is simply a part of
human nature. Who is to say? That is not my concern at this point. I
only want you to come to the realization that, one and all, right or
wrong, we do render judgement on others, all the time. Luckily,
most of the time those judgements have a sound foundation. They are made
based upon our individual knowledge of the past, calling upon personal
experiences, for comparative purposes. In deciding if a person acted
rightly or wrongly in any given situation, like a good man or a bad, we
ask ourselves questions such as, "How did I act when placed in that
same situation," or perhaps how a friend or family member acted.
Thus we are able to know if any individuals conduct falls within the
parameters of what we would consider to be acceptable behavior. What
happens though, if one is called on to make a judgement about matters
that lie totally beyond their realm of experience? Upon what would their
decision be based? No ones' actions take place in a vacuum; it is not
possible to look at an individual's actions alone, in isolation, and
reach a sound conclusion as to whether those actions were reasonable or
not. One must take the totality of the circumstances into consideration.
What happened, and even the when and where a thing took place is simply
not sufficient information. In
order to properly judge another's actions, those actions must be given
context. Where personal experience is lacking, the only context one had
to call upon is a societal one. Which, if the individual in question is
not from or of the same society, would very likely lead to erroneous
conclusions on the part of the one sitting in judgement. . How much
sense would it make to ask an upper-middle class New Yorker to judge the
suitability of any action taken by a native from the furthest reaches in
the outback of Even
when one has no proper way to place a situation or action in context,
the resulting judgement (or misjudgement, as the case may be), is
usually harmless. Or at least inasmuch as it most often only affects the
interpersonal relationships of the parties involved; whether two people
become friends, lovers, etc; No one is actually brought into jeopardy of
life or limb as a consequence. But
what of the times when the circumstances differ; when more is at stake?
Take into consideration those who are called for jury duty, asked to sit
in judgement on a criminal matter. At that time, the decision rendered
can result in a person's loss of freedom, or even the loss of their
life. What then? What if it were you yourself on trial? Does it seem
most proper for the jurors to be those able to call upon a store of life
experiences similar to your own, in order to reach a just decision? Or
would you prefer to be judged by persons viewing you from an entirely
different societal framework? As
much as each of us likes to view ourselves as free thinkers, the fact is
that, in the main, our views on what is right and wrong are imposed upon
us by the society in which we live. And oftentimes, what is deemed
proper varies radically from one society to the next. For an easy
example, picture if you will a young woman out for a walk. She is
dressed in jeans and a midriff baring shirt. She smiles and nods at a
man she passes on the sidewalk. Anything strange about that? Of course
not, it happens every day, on every street in the But
the acceptability in your mind of the hypothetical woman's actions stems
solely from the fact that you are viewing the situation from within the
framework of the society in which you live. Had you been raised in a
Middle Eastern country, as an Islamic fundamentalist, you would view the
same woman, taking the same action, as someone indulging in an absolute
perversion. In such a place, she would likely be charged with public
lewdness and face severe punishment. An American would be outraged to
see any such woman punished, while the fundamentalist would be equally
outraged if she were not, and both would feel completely justified in
their outlook. And
yet the only real difference would be the basic view of the right and
wrong instilled upon each of the judging individuals by the society in
which they live. Which is, of course, the reason Americans would not be
invited to a fundamentalist country to sit as jurors in a court case,
nor fundamentalists invited into American courts. Do
you see the importance of an individual being judged by those from
within their own society, with world views similar to their own? Ask
yourself again if it were your own fate in question, who would you wish
to be judging you? The
jury system established in this country has many constitutional and
legal guarantees, designed to protect those who come before the bar, and
assure any judgement rendered against them is a just one. Many arguments
both for and against all aspects of this system can and have been made,
but for the moment, I would like to direct you to one area in
particular; that is, the right of a person to be tried by a jury of
their peers. What
exactly does that mean? The Riverside Websters dictionary defines
"peer" as "one of equal status with another." Or in
other words, for the purpose of a trial, ones peers would be those
having similar backgrounds and experiences, who would be able to place
the individual in questions actions into their proper context, and
render a true and correct verdict. Being
tried by a jury of ones peers would seem to make eminently good sense.
But is that truly how things happen within the courts? I would submit to
you that it does not. It is virtually impossible, even in the most
ordinary of cases, for anyone on trial to actually find a jury of their
peers. The
fact is, the majority of those charged with crimes and currently
circulating through this country's court system are poor, young,
disaffected with the government, and have been in trouble with the law
repeatedly. At the same time, most jurors sitting on trials are middle
to upper-middle class, middle aged or elderly, very much pro government,
and have never been in any previous brushes with the law. Consequently,
the "jury of ones peers" usually turns out to be a fallacy.
The person on trial is judged by those with a substantially different
background then their own, with substantially differing world views, and
little to no experience with the circumstances leading to and
surrounding most crimes. The result of such is a lack of even the
slightest bit of empathy for the defendant, unfair assumptions being
made about the individual, and far more harsh punishment handed out than
is warranted by the crime committed. Even
so, with the difference in outlook both of the aforementioned groups
might have, they are still of a common society, with at least loosely
agreed upon standards of right and wrong. Such being, they may arguably
be called peers, and argument may be made as well for the fairness of
such a system. In
some cases however, the difference between juror and defendant are far
more polarized. Which leads me to where I've been headed all along: my
own case. By
way of introduction, my name is Shannon Agofsky, I was arrested in 1990,
sent to prison in '91, and have never been out of prison since. Only a
few short months ago, in July of 2004, I was sentenced to death, in I
was prosecuted under the United States Code, Title 18, section 1118.
(Among others) The so-called "eleven-v" law was passed in Now,
see, there you go. Already making those judgements we talked about
earlier. Knowing that I was charged with something from that particular
bill has no doubt led you to conclude am in some way involved in
terrorism. Not a surprising conclusion, but an erroneous one, for I am
not. The
charge, once translated from lengthy legal speak to plain English, is
"murder committed while serving a life sentence in Federal
prison." In and of itself; before the submission of any type of
evidence in the part of the prosecution, the mere wording of the charge
is enough to warn any juror that the person with whom they are dealing
is very definitively not a part of their world. Anyone serving a
life sentence is an exile from society, forever barred, no longer a
part, never to return. So
who exactly are a "lifers" peers? Who is of "equal
status" to one such as myself; who has spent their entire adult
life in maximum security prisons, with never a hope of being free? Are
my peers the homeowners and housewives, the doctors, dentists, and
accountants who make up the typical jury pool? Certainly,
clearly, they are not. Yet they are exactly the people who were called
upon to judge my actions, to decide if I should live or die. Was
their verdict correct; was it just? I have no doubt each of them would
respond to that question with an un-hesitant "yes." But I
believe that is only because their judgement is without context, made
from outside the framework of the society in which I live, with no point
of reference from which to measure what occurred. For
believe me, those living within the environs of a maximum security
prison are indeed living lives as different from the average juror as
that of the New Yorker from the New Zealander, or the American from the
Arabic fundamentalist. Perhaps even more so. Prison is a society unto
itself, with its own rules, regulations, and codes, known only to
inmates, and as far separate from normal society as night from day. No
effort was made during my trial to explain prison life to the jurors in
any substantive way. They had no context, and their lack thereof likely
never even occurred to them. It is too late to explain anything to those
jurors now, but I would like to provide you with that context which they
lacked. I invite you to take a trip, to step into my world for a short
time, and to learn how people survive in prison. I’ll give you some
insight into the existence of a lifer, and tell you why I did what I
did. After you have heard my story, will what you learned lead you to conclude that the death sentence I received was not warranted? I really cannot guess. Perhaps you will still believe I deserve to die. But at least if you condemn me, that condemnation will come from one with full knowledge of the circumstances, and with a real context from which to make an informed decision.
Shannon
Agofsky #06267-045
|