Susan Glaspell’s quit ‘ A Jury of Her Peers’ is a end that, with a determined degree of ambiguity, covers the space of justice in society. In the end, the Attorney, Mr. Peters and Mr. Hale are looking for evidence to incriminate Mrs. Wright in the execute of her husband. They search her house without any luck. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters on the other hand view a lifeless bird wrapped up in a section of silk. This is the motive needed for a conviction. However, the women camouflage this from their husbands and the Attorney. They do not want Mrs. Wright to go to jail. By hiding the bird, Susan Glaspell is touching on the race that the justice system they had which is essentially the same as that which exists today is flawed. To better understand the flaws, it is vital to quiz the flaws as indicated by Susan Glaspell and the flaws that have reach to mar the justice system since then to today.
Susan Glaspell leaves it to the reader to infer the flaws. For example, in the short stay, the society was prejudiced in terms of sex. In the stop, the jury is all male. This short cease was written at a time when women were marginalized in all civic matters. Society thus had a predetermined concept of women, that is that they were an ignorant, feeble-minded people. The Attorney (a participant in the justice system) in the conclude confirms this when he says, ‘you know juries when it comes to women’ (632), indicating that women were treated differently in upright matters. This was one of the flaws of the Justice System during Susan Glaspell’s time. Since then there has been a transition from a gender-biased society.
The jury nowadays comprises of both men and women, and all people are treated equally under the law. Despite this advancement in society, there are a few reasons as to why the Justice system mild is not working at its prime. First, people are, in essence, forced to participate in Jury duty. People bag summons in the mail requesting them to terrified up in court to be evaluated as potential jurors. Failure to do so results in jail term or a heavy exquisite. Critics of this have likened it to involuntary servitude or the mandatory conscription. Such people may acknowledge to this with contempt and fail to construct their duty as expected. They may be rapid to secure their civic duty done and thus race to a judgment. Also, jurors are human and are thus portion of what goes on in the country. They already have opinions on matters of controversy. The jury may also happen to be prejudiced and thus pass judgment unfairly.
We learn from the short end that if the Attorney, Mr. Hale and Mr. Peters were to win some evidence of motive, they would lock up Mrs. Wright for slay. Their job, particularly the Attorney’s, was to bag the evidence and gain a conviction. They would not order other facts such as the fact that Mr. Wright had in a sense destroyed his wife’s happiness and killed her inside as we learn from Mrs. Hale. Mrs. Hale tells Mrs. Peters ‘No Wright would not like the bird-a thing that sang. She veteran to escape. He killed that too’ (631) . The law does not factor in the fact that Mr. Wright pushed his wife to destroy him. We derive the sense that the law, at the time, was thus restricted in the sense that it could not accommodate for consideration of other factors leading to the crime. Similarly today, the Justice system operates on the premise on the laws as established in the constitution of the land. While laws, as written in the constitution are a necessity for order and obliging administration of justice, the constitution cannot bear laws for every aspect of our lives.
In addition to this, there happens to be some laws, in my concept, that hinder the administration of justice. An example of these paradoxical bills includes, the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. The word illegally obtained is relative. The constitution’s definition of ‘illegally obtained’ is gargantuan and whenever an agreement is stout, it benefits the party that did not way it up. Evidence that may be distinguished to a case former may be described as illegally obtained and thus are omitted from court. This will obviously inhibits superior administration of justice.
While reading the short quit, we salvage a feel that there is some acquire of struggle between women and men. The men inform themselves helpful in all senses and leave Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters in the kitchen to collect clothes that Mrs. Wright would need in jail. The comments made by the men, for example, Mr. Peters, further this feeling that there is a warfare prove the scenes between men and women. Mr. Peters condescendingly comments, to the other men, ‘They wonder whether she was going to quilt it or impartial knot it!’ (627) . Using such character comments, Susan Glaspell is hinting at the unspoken gender struggle at the time. Owing to the progression of the society to a more gender incompatibility tolerant one today, the prevalent of social struggles now happens to be based on social class.
The justice system today is not exempt from this dilapidated age battle of classes. In most cases when two parties in court are contesting an elope, they do so by hiring lawyers. There is a gigantic chance that the two parties do not have the same amount resources available for hiring a lawyer. The party with more resources at their disposal will hire more lawyers or at least lawyers with more experience (which means they charge more) . Due to the proficiency of the lawyers they hire, they probably waste up winning or at least receiving a punishment not commensurate with the crime and even if justice is served in such cases, the justice system is slowly arresting away from its duty of punishment with rehabilitation in prisons to unprejudiced punishment and thus quiet ultimately fails.
The high number of choose offenders can afraid this today. According to a highly esteemed group that researches rob offenders, criminologists say, ‘seventy percent of the crimes committed in America are committed by win offenders’
All these flaws beg the expect of what should be done to rectify the Justice system. For each flaw, there is a reasonable solution. First, people asked to abet as juries should be given adequate incentives to participate willingly. For example, such people should be offered an amount of tax relief commensurate with the time spent on the jury. There should also be stringent laws on who can wait on on the jury. Some perform of research should be done on the individuals asked to befriend as members of the jury, instead of relying on the forms that the people bear (as is done today) .
Second, a committee of experts should be established to perform laws more specific and crop ambiguity and revise the paradoxical laws. The committee should also explore to set more laws to shroud most aspects of life.
On the dash of the class struggles, no laws should be created to bring equality in the courtroom because that will initiate another whole can of worms. There will be concerns about the moral to first-rate representation. The word ‘proper’ is relative and a never-ending debate would stem from this flee. The only feasible solution is similar to that of reducing prejudice in the members of jury. An fair jury would weigh the case justly, disregarding the economic spot of the parties in court. Constant review of the success rate of the Justice system is well-known to support it on track, that is, to ensure that its accomplishing its duty of punishment with rehabilitation.
In conclusion, the inadequacy of the Justice system has been an race addressed by Susan Glaspell in a revealing light and in such a plan that allows for the analysis of the justice system, as the paper has done. The points listed are impartial but a tip of the iceberg on the flaws that the justice system has as indicated by Susan Glaspell and as seen to exist in society today. Some accomplish of action, such as integrating some of the solutions proposed in this paper, needs to be taken to carve the flaws. Although, the flaws of the Justice system are not expressly written in the short conclude, Susan Glaspell definitely hints at it as has been illustrated in the paper.