I heard on the radio that the jury selection for that lady who drowned her children is now over, and that eight out of the twelve jurors are women. Apparently, this bodes well for the defense. It is felt, by those who like to give consideration to such things, that having a majority of women on the jury will help them to 'empathize' with her, probable, defense of innocence by reason of insanity.
I'm certainly not going to talk about the case itself, nor even the likely outcome of the trial, but I was given pause for thought when I heard the sentiment regarding empathy, expressed. I mean, it sounds plausible, but it requires some careful examination.
Is it true that a jury of mostly women is more likely to find her not guilty because, in the end, they are closer to being able to understand the emotional roller coaster of post-partum depression?
Are men and women so profoundly different in their ability to judge the actions on others?
Let's be clear here. We're not discussing a preference for watching football or floral print curtains. What we're talking about is a mental state so extreme, so remote from that which we normally experience, that it led a mother to commit an act utterly terrible to contemplate.
I've heard it said that many, many mothers experience, at some point, terrible fears that they will harm their child. Perfectly good, loving mothers, who become obsessed with the fear they will throw their baby over a balcony or in front of an on-coming car. This, I am told, is actually rather normal. What separates them from people like the Harris county lady who actually *killed* her children, is the knowledge that the act they were contemplating had horrific consequences. It was, in the end, something they did not want to do. Somewhat like standing on the edge of a cliff and being filled with the fear, not that one might fall, but rather that one might jump.
Is it true, then, that a women can understand the multiple murder of children more easily than a man? Are they so much more in touch with other women that they can more easily grasp even such an extreme action? If we really believe that the answer is yes, than it leads me to think that men and women must have fundamentally different views of the world, much more so than I would have believe.
Certainly if one of the jurors had suffered from post-partum depression to the extend claimed, or likely to be claimed, by the defense, then I could argue that they may empathize more clearly. But all of them? Are men so utterly unable to base their judgment on the testimony of clinical experts? And if that isn't what the eight women of the jury are basing their judgment on, then what is?