Black and white, or in-between?

When America’s founding fathers authored the governing documents of the new nation, they envisioned a judicial system that would rule according to the law, settle disputes, and unify the democratic society.

Contrary to their goal, the close votes for “guilty” and “not guilty” verdicts and debates over the specific wording of charges have left people wondering whether the system is truly fair.

“There are so many little nuances to the definitions of charges, and I think that’s where you find people nitpicking the definition and trying to get a lighter sentence,” Bhopale said. “There is sometimes a disagreement of facts: one witness will have their retelling of a story, whereas the other will have an entirely different perspective.”

Therefore, the right to a free trial rises in importance due to the many uncontrollable variables of each case. Juries may reach their verdict depending on various factors, like the way witnesses are portrayed and what evidence attorneys choose to present.

“It just really comes down to how the defense attorneys are able to present the information that makes their client not guilty on a legal level and to connect with the jury on an emotional level by making them think that the defendant could never commit whatever crime they’re being accused of,” Bhopale said.

The uncertainty before each case means that the accused is forced to rely on the defense lawyer’s best efforts to ensure that they receive impartial treatment.

While many want to think that the justice system is fair, it may not be. According to Cueva, the process is only fair to the extent that those responsible for managing it want it to be.

“Humans are the ones who are responsible for administering justice; justice is just a concept,” Cueva said. “The lawyer’s job is to make the process honest, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it will always be fair.”

Matthews expressed a similar sentiment.

“I think it’s often not fair. I think the results of the system are often governed by your relative wealth rather than by justice,” Matthews said. “It’s better than most systems; it does treat people as individuals at times. But in many ways, it’s an epic failure because the recidivism rate is very high.”

In California, that recidivism rate — the rate at which convicted criminals re-offend — has averaged around 50% over the past decade.

“We have to rethink how we operate our justice system seriously, so we do it in such a way that actually prevents crime,” Matthews said. “Right now, that is not what is happening.”