Jurors Send Message of Civil Responsibility

A debate is raging over whether the state of Oklahoma should prosecute Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols despite their convictions in federal court last year.

Although those 12 men and women decided the federal case, some believe a state trial would serve a healing purpose of sorts for the victims and all those who were impacted by the tragedy.

Juries do that. Through them, all of America speaks, for the jury system in this country is designed for the few to speak for the masses.

But the function of a jury in civil cases is evolving into an educational one, using verdicts to set a standard for what is acceptable conduct by negligent corporations in this country.

Take the record $3.5 billion in punitive damages awarded late last year in a case involving a Louisiana railway fire. One juror said they were sending a message to the corporation for its "unconcern" for the safety of others for allowing highly flammable and toxic chemicals to be stored in a poor, largely black neighborhood.

A jury's presence can be a very powerful force. Would the tobacco industry be motivated to reach settlements in the various states if not for the fearful message a jury could send?

Juries also are demonstrating a growing intolerance for aircraft manufacturers' and operators' negligence in failing to correct foreseeable defects when a plane goes down. Corporate defendants are sensing that, as demonstrated by the recent $110 million settlement for 27 of the families in the Roselawn, Ind., crash. Settlement talks began in earnest during jury selection.

These damages awards should not be jaw-dropping; rather, they should be awe-inspiring. More and more jurors are taking the time to consider what is right and wrong and attempting to set a standard to reflect those attitudes through their deliberations.