"Now That Was A Good Class": learning about politics by observing local government.

Seitz, John L.

(The Teacher) PS: Political Science & Politics v27,

n1 (March, 1994):71 (2 pages).

It was Friday, the day before Spring Weekend. I had just handed back

their

papers, which were nearly all well done. The assignment for the

paper had been

to attend a trial or a meeting of the city or county council. The

students

were to imagine that they were a member of the jury or of the

council. After

they described the main features of the jury trial or of a major

issue the

council considered, they were to indicate how they would have voted

and to

explain why.

Most of the class had attended a trial in the Magistrate's Court,

and many of

those students had waited to do this until the last possible day

before the

paper was due. The case many of them attended was a DUI

case--driving under

the influence of alcohol. The defendant was judged to be not guilty.

A number

of the students believed that he was guilty but had gotten off

because his

lawyer was better than the state trooper who was prosecuting the

case.

The arrest had taken place two years before the trial. The defendant

was

stopped by the trooper after a traffic violation. The trooper

smelled alcohol

in the car, and after the defendant failed two sobriety tests, which

were

administered on the spot, he was taken to jail where a breath

analysis test

was given. He scored very close to being legally drunk on that test,

and was

in the range where his driving ability might or might not be

impaired because

of his intake of alcohol.

The trooper had not taken notes during the arrest. The lawyer showed

that the

trooper and the policeman who administered the breath analysis test

differed

in their memory of where the test had been administered. The lawyer

used this

fact to raise doubts about the accuracy of the trooper's memory. The

judge

terminated the case before it went to the jury on a motion by the

defendant's

lawyer that insufficient evidence was presented to convict the

defendant. The

defendant was considered to be innocent.

Some of the students mentioned in the class that this seemed to be a

situation

where a "sharp" lawyer outwitted an inexperienced trooper and a

guilty person

was set free. "It wasn't fair," said a student.

The previous week in class we had discussed what justice means. We

had learned

that justice is "fair treatment under the law;" it is what is

considered to be

"fair" according to that society's standards. In our society, I

said, we

consider it "fair" that a person is considered to be innocent until

proven

guilty. The burden is on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable

doubt, that

the person charged with a crime is indeed guilty. We also consider

it "fair"

that it is better to let free a possibly guilty person than it is to

punish a

possibly innocent person. I asked the class, "Do any of you disagree

with

these principles?" None did, but one student then asked, "But

doesn't this

judgment about what is fair differ from country to country?" I

admitted that

it does and stated that, indeed, it also changes within a country,

over time.

The text had contained these ideas about justice, but now the trial

which the

students had attended was nicely illustrating them.

Another idea came to me during this discussion: I mentioned that our

state

makes the arresting police officer prosecute the case instead of

using a

prosecutor with legal training, thus often pitting the poor

courtroom skills

of a state trooper against those of an accomplished lawyer. This

practice may

be related to the strong feelings prevalent in our state against

taxes and

government. "The drunk drivers who go free, possibly to kill

themselves or

someone else next time," I said, "may be a result of too little

government."

After saying this, I realized we were now touching on another topic

we had

studied in the class: instances of too much or too little

governmental

bureaucracy.

I developed the paper topic using the trial or council meetings last

year,

after having taught Introduction to Political Science for 15 years.

Several

years ago I was called to jury duty in a local court (my first such

experience) and was so impressed with what I learned during that

experience

that I vowed to give my introductory students a similar experience.

I knew

that many of these students would never take another political

science

course, and this was their best chance to learn about how government

actually

functions. I also realized that the local Magistrate's Court hears

many

drunk-driving cases and that this is a subject college students

would find

interesting.

My wife holds a Ph.D. in English and has stated that students do

their best

writing when they are writing about something real, something they

have

experienced themselves. My experience with this paper topic

certainly supports

her judgment, since students inevitably do better on this paper than

they do

on the previous paper, which requires an analysis of a book. Many of

students have turned out to be fine reporters and good writers.

The time was up. The students got up to leave, and as I turned out

the lights

in the room I said to myself, "Now that was a good class."

John L. Seitz is professor of government at Wofford College. His

forthcoming

book, Global Issues: An Introduction, will be published by Blackwell

Publishers.