Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

[ok doser]

Yeah it's easier to convict a black guy with a white jury. But is that the point? Getting the most convictions? How about fairness? Or do we not believe in that?

prosecutors don't

 

[brewmama]

Yeah, those all white juries are really color blind.

How did those one or two black jurists make them convict more whites? I didn't think it worked that way . Doesn't it have to be unanimous?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Studies show that All white juries also convict black defendants at a much higher rate than mixed juries.

Which would be why prosecutors choose them first, and defense attorneys try to strike them, because the name of the game in the courtroom is to win their case.

Its not about what you want to make it about, its for the fact that whites usually convict and blacks routinely find not guilty even when evidence is overwhelming against a black defendant.

 

[Stripe]

Yeah it's easier to convict a black guy with a white jury. But is that the point? Getting the most convictions? How about fairness? Or do we not believe in that?

No, you racist moron. You should not consider "fairness" when making judgement. If he is guilty, he should be executed. Only racist morons start talking about skin color.

If you noticed in my graphic and link, more diverse juries convict fewer black people, but more white people, resulting in relatively equal conviction rates. I can make a pretty good guess as to why that is.

Because you have a racist agenda.

 

[Alate_One]

Which would be why prosecutors choose them first, and defense attorneys try to strike them, because the name of the game in the courtroom is to win their case.

Its not about what you want to make it about, its for the fact that whites usually convict and blacks routinely find not guilty even when evidence is overwhelming against a black defendant.

Do you have images turned off?

mixed juries convict about 70% of the time, black or white.

Also it was a group of prosecutors filing a friend of the court brief.

"Numerous studies demonstrate that prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors at significantly higher rates than white jurors." Those are not the words of the defense in the case. They come from a group of highly regarded prosecutors, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Timothy Foster, who was convicted and sentenced to death in the killing of an elderly white woman in Georgia.

Lastly there is the Batson ruling which said jurors cannot be struck because of their race.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you have images turned off?

mixed juries convict about 70% of the time, black or white.

Also it was a group of prosecutors filing a friend of the court brief.

"Numerous studies demonstrate that prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors at significantly higher rates than white jurors." Those are not the words of the defense in the case. They come from a group of highly regarded prosecutors, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Timothy Foster, who was convicted and sentenced to death in the killing of an elderly white woman in Georgia.

Lastly there is the Batson ruling which said jurors cannot be struck because of their race.

One more time, the name of the game in the courtroom is to win their case. It doesn't have anything to do with being racist. It has everything to do with choosing those you feel most likely (as a prosecutor) to convict, or (as a defense attorney) to acquit.

Plain and simple as that.

 

[Alate_One]

No, you racist moron. You should not consider "fairness" when making judgement. If he is guilty, he should be executed. Only racist morons start talking about skin color.

Fairness and abiding by the rules is the issue here. The justice system, is about equality under the law, not how fast you can get someone executed.

You do understand that your name calling means you've lost the argument?

Because you have a racist agenda.

Seeing race as a social construct and being racist are two different things.

 

[Alate_One]

One more time, the name of the game in the courtroom is to win their case. It doesn't have anything to do with being racist. It has everything to do with choosing those you feel most likely (as a prosecutor) to convict, or (as a defense attorney) to acquit.

Plain and simple as that.

SCOUTS has ruled that using race to strike jurors is unconstitutional, Period.

There are rules to winning any game or case, and lawyers are all about rules. This isn't a cheat to win scenario.

 

[Angel4Truth]

SCOUTS has ruled that using race to strike jurors is unconstitutional, Period.

So i care why?
(you are also wrong)

Supreme Court to examine racial divide in jury selection
- See more at: http://www.readingeagle.com/ap/arti...divide-in-jury-selection#sthash.Wo1BoaaD.dpuf

They havent ruled on it yet, thats from oct 25, this year. On what was ruled before:

In 2008, the court in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. ruled 7 to 2 that Louisiana prosecutors had erred in striking African American jurors because the reasons given for the disqualifications applied just as well to white jurors who were accepted. - See more at: http://www.readingeagle.com/ap/arti...divide-in-jury-selection#sthash.Wo1BoaaD.dpuf

There are rules to winning any game or case, and lawyers are all about rules. This isn't a cheat to win scenario.

You don't know lawyers very well.

 

[rexlunae]

One more time, the name of the game in the courtroom is to win their case. It doesn't have anything to do with being racist. It has everything to do with choosing those you feel most likely (as a prosecutor) to convict, or (as a defense attorney) to acquit.

Plain and simple as that.

So, it's not "racism" to use a blatant race-based standard if the reason is a "game" and the stakes of the game are literally life and death.

You understand that just because there is a comprehensible motivation that makes logical sense, that still doesn't justify racism, right? Serving on a jury is both a duty and a right. You can't take it away just because you think someone is going to vote against you.

 

[Alate_One]

So i care why?

You posted on a topic about a SCOTUS case . . . :doh:

Wha'd you think it was going to come down to?

They havent ruled on it yet, thats from oct 25, this year. On what was ruled before:

No, what was ruled before was in 1986. Batson v. Kentucky.

You can't dismiss a juror for their race.

You don't know lawyers very well.

I think you are failing to understand the issue. This case is evidence of lawyers behaving badly. Their defense is they're not discriminating based on race, even though it's pretty obvious they are.

If you cheat to win a case and it's found out by the other team of lawyers you can have your "win" erased as is the danger here.

It was an idiotic and racist move on the part of the Georgia prosecutors that could get this guy off. But hopefully SCOTUS will clarify the rules and ultimately juries will be more representative of their communities and more effective in dealing out justice in other cases.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think you are failing to understand the issue. This case is evidence of lawyers behaving badly. Their defense is they're not discriminating based on race, even though it's pretty obvious they are.

If you cheat to win a case and it's found out by the other team of lawyers you can have your "win" erased as is the danger here.

It was an idiotic and racist move on the part of the Georgia prosecutors that could get this guy off. But hopefully SCOTUS will clarify the rules and ultimately juries will be more representative of their communities and more effective in dealing out justice in other cases.

You are a racist, thats the overall issue. You look for it everywhere, so do all extreme liberals these days

 

[Alate_One]

You are a racist, thats the overall issue. You look for it everywhere, so do all extreme liberals these days

Translation: I can't explain why it's okay to discriminate based on race so I'll call you a racist and be done with it. :dizzy:

 

[brewmama]

So, it's not "racism" to use a blatant race-based standard if the reason is a "game" and the stakes of the game are literally life and death.

You understand that just because there is a comprehensible motivation that makes logical sense, that still doesn't justify racism, right? Serving on a jury is both a duty and a right. You can't take it away just because you think someone is going to vote against you.

Of course you can. They do it all the time.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Translation: I can't explain why it's okay to discriminate based on race so I'll call you a racist and be done with it. :dizzy:

I thought a black defendant had a right to a jury of their peers, i guess its racist to have an all black jury based on race.

Does jury of peers include race? You are messed up.

I could care less what you call me. You seem to think i suffer from some guilt over your imagination, that might work on you, but i dont suffer anything i didnt do.

 

[brewmama]

It was an idiotic and racist move on the part of the Georgia prosecutors that could get this guy off. But hopefully SCOTUS will clarify the rules and ultimately juries will be more representative of their communities and more effective in dealing out justice in other cases.

Yep, jury quotas here we come.

 

[Alate_One]

So what you think would be better is to have a quota system on juries now?

Probably better than putting up all white juries.

Over a 1986 case that was seemingly handled fine except blacks were possibly excluded,

They were highlighted and have "B" written next to their names, and rated against one another rather than against the other jurors. The thinking being apparently: "If we have to have a black person which one is best?". It's about as blatant as it gets. As Justice Kagan thought when seeing the case this morning.

Justice Elena Kagan at one point told the state’s lawyer: “You have to deal with all this information that, what it really was, was they wanted to get the black people off the jury.” The Justice clearly regarded what was in the prosecutors’ notes as telling, indeed.

SCOTUS Blog

which is not that surprising since a great many blacks have contempt and hatred toward the police and "the man"? And do not seem able to convict someone of their own race?

Not true as shown in multiple posts - even in the OP.

 

[brewmama]

Probably better than putting up all white juries.

Do you seriously not see the problems that could engender? Do we have to get the quota exactly matching the make-up of the location of the crime? What if it is a city that has few blacks and a black is on trial? Does that change it? What if the black prospective juror openly admits that he will never find another black guilty. He still can't be struck?

They were highlighted and have "B" written next to their names, and rated against one another rather than against the other jurors. The thinking being apparently: "If we have to have a black person which one is best?". It's about as blatant as it gets. As Justice Kagan thought when seeing the case this morning.

Justice Elena Kagan at one point told the state’s lawyer: “You have to deal with all this information that, what it really was, was they wanted to get the black people off the jury.” The Justice clearly regarded what was in the prosecutors’ notes as telling, indeed.

SCOTUS Blog
Not true as shown in multiple posts - even in the OP.

So you think we should get an overall quota in jury selection across the board based on 1 or 2 prosecutors' decisions? That seems way extreme to me, not to mention racist in that jurors everywhere would have to be picked according to their skin color.

And how did they get the statistics on all-white juries vs mixed juries if blacks aren't allowed on juries?
And you never explained how the blacks on the mixed juries managed to force more convictions on whites.

 

[Stripe]

Fairness and abiding by the rules is the issue here. The justice system, is about equality under the law, not how fast you can get someone executed.You do understand that your name calling means you've lost the argument?Seeing race as a social construct and being racist are two different things.

Of course you want to talk about anything but justice. This guy raped and murdered an 80-year-old woman. He should have been hanged decades ago, but retards like you want to put justice off even further with talk about people's skin color.

 

[rexlunae]

Yep, jury quotas here we come.

Or...we could do away with per emptory challenges to jurors. You want to dismiss a juror? You should have to show cause.