Every once and a while, I have a funny moment. I was thinking about jury/audience relationship, mental masturbation. What are their responsibilities? The jury says that they are free from prejudice; the audiences says they have suspended their disbelief. To me they are on parallel tracks moderated by directional forces from back door prejudices. For example, look no closer than your TV; it is all there -The Good Wife- based upon the adversarial model: rogue prosecutor vs affordability of defense; than they agree to disagree and proceed to act out their respective arguments to their charge, the Judge. Those who are responsible to be critics for the day listen attentively, jury or audience. In my case the last thing the jury heard from the prosecutor was: "He is a time share sales man, what chance did she have!" Her body language was as if she were justice herself telling them to convict on conjecture because God wanted it that way. She presented on evidence to corroborate the verdict other than that I was a time share salesman and therefore I should be guilty and sent off to prison with the label of baby-raper; therefore, I should be raped freely by other inmates. My jury were scavengers from the wrath which reeked havoc upon them by the storm known as Hugo. They could crucify me because, like the Romans who crucified Jesus, they could. These members of the jury were not citizens in action, but Christian wrath based upon prejudices only understood by vengeful people wishing to condemn someone because they are hurting from Hugo's effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment