ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

Available for over a year

Good morning. As soon as I got out of Evensong on Sunday I turned on my mobile and walked home with it glued to my ear as I followed the deliberations of the jury in the trial of Helen Titchener. For those who didn’t hear it this was an extended episode of The Archers; Helen was on trial for the attempted murder of her husband Rob, after years of his hidden emotional abuse. It was a compelling piece of radio drama. But it was also a parable about moral discernment. At the start, the most vocal members of the jury came out with the view that Helen was guilty and became louder and more emotional as they hurtled towards the verdict they thought obvious. The one juror who counselled a more reasonable approach was talked over and silenced. Another quietly refused to join the majority, and a third could not make up her mind. It took a long time for the prejudiced majority to work through their emotions and begin to realise that it was their own past experience that was colouring their responses. Then and only then, with not much time left to go, did they really begin to consider the case in front of them. An older woman juror, the voice of wisdom, pointed out that the law of the land required them to be objective; in other words, to suspend their reflexes and to attend to the actual evidence. And when they began to do that, slowly their prejudices lifted and they finally ended up returning a verdict of not guilty. The trial of Helen Titchener has reminded us that our judgements of other people are often clouded by unacknowledged prejudices and that these come laden with powerful emotions. Our memories of fear and hurt can spring into life when we make decisions about people, triggered by a person’s appearance, their accent, their clothes, their age, their gender. We don’t always recognise our instant reflexes for what they are, and if they are challenged we become defensive: What me? Prejudiced? We are programmed for fight or flight on the basis of our memories; and it requires a real effort to realise this. It is particularly hard today when politicians, celebrities and media pundits so often use emotional triggers to activate our prejudices; and call forth instant responses that often aren’t considered. All the faith traditions have things to say about the importance of discernment and have teachings about the cleansing our moral vision. As I reflected on the Archers’ trial I was reminded of the words from the Gospel: ‘Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye; but do not see the log in your own. First remove the log from your own eye and then you will be able to see clearly’. We should be grateful that this principle is enshrined in our laws and legal processes and that it is what we require of juries as well as judges.