Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

[rocketman]

Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

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

So do you propose that both the prosecution & defense should have to show cause to dismiss a potential juror? Because as it stands now both sides can dismiss without showing cause which seems fair to me. I have sat through jury selection quite a few times, once on a murder trial and between the prosecution & defense they collectively dismissed around 100 people before they found 12 & 4 backups. Many of those dismissed by the defense were of the same race as the defendant. I am not sure that changing the way jury selection is done now will net a "fairer" decision given both sides have a say in who sits in the jury.

 

[ok doser]

... who have been raised to think "whitey am de debil".

well, he am :idunno:

 

[genuineoriginal]

well, he am :idunno:

If you are referring to George Soros, then you are right.

 

[rexlunae]

So do you propose that both the prosecution & defense should have to show cause to dismiss a potential juror?

Yes.

Because as it stands now both sides can dismiss without showing cause which seems fair to me.

The problem is, if there is an identifiable minority that you're trying to exclude, it's fairly easy to do, because if you can strike a few of them, the replacement juror is likely to be from the majority. The more diverse the pool of jurors is, the harder it is.

I have sat through jury selection quite a few times, once on a murder trial and between the prosecution & defense they collectively dismissed around 100 people before they found 12 & 4 backups. Many of those dismissed by the defense were of the same race as the defendant. I am not sure that changing the way jury selection is done now will net a "fairer" decision given both sides have a say in who sits in the jury.

Well, what do you think the function of peremptory challenges is in the current system? It seems unnecessary at best to me, as well as prone to abuse.

 

[bybee]

Yes.



The problem is, if there is an identifiable minority that you're trying to exclude, it's fairly easy to do, because if you can strike a few of them, the replacement juror is likely to be from the majority. The more diverse the pool of jurors is, the harder it is.



Well, what do you think the function of peremptory challenges is in the current system? It seems unnecessary at best to me, as well as prone to abuse.

Are you stating that a black defendant must have black jurors in order to get a fair trial? That is quite racist if that is your stance.

 

[rexlunae]

Are you stating that a black defendant must have black jurors in order to get a fair trial?

No. But it's not a fair trial if the jury selection isn't fair. But look to the actions of prosecutors themselves. They know that they're better off with an all-white jury, and they act accordingly.

That is quite racist if that is your stance.

I'm sensing a little personal animosity from you, bybee.

 

[bybee]

No. But it's not a fair trial if the jury selection isn't fair. But look to the actions of prosecutors themselves. They know that they're better off with an all-white jury, and they act accordingly.



I'm sensing a little personal animosity from you, bybee.

Sorry. I mean it as a gentle jibe. But if you are hurt by it I shall not do it again. I value that you and I have been able to disagree courteously.

 

[ok doser]

No. But it's not a fair trial if the jury selection isn't fair.

who gets to define "fair"?

you seem to equate "fair" with "racially balanced"

as you've been shown, blacks often refuse to convict other blacks, regardless of the testimony or evidence

is that fair?

 

[Alate_One]

who gets to define "fair"?

you seem to equate "fair" with "racially balanced"

as you've been shown, blacks often refuse to convict other blacks, regardless of the testimony or evidence

Where was that shown exactly? Is the OJ case your only example? (which is questionable) That doesn't qualify as "often" regardless.

 

[ok doser]

Where was that shown exactly? Is the OJ case your only example? (which is questionable) That doesn't qualify as "often" regardless.

beats me - too many threads to keep track of


do you deny it happens?

 

[ok doser]

here's a wapo article about it from 16 years ago - if you Google you'll find plenty more - it's a recognized phenomenon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/jury080299.htm

 

[genuineoriginal]

here's a wapo article about it from 16 years ago - if you Google you'll find plenty more - it's a recognized phenomenon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/jury080299.htm

Nice article.

 

[Granite]

I would tend to be more outraged had it not been for the example set by the OJ Simpson trial.

How long is OJ's trial going to be used as an excuse? Happened a while ago last time I checked.

 

[ok doser]

How long is OJ's trial going to be used as an excuse? Happened a while ago last time I checked.

how long are blacks gonna whine about slavery?

how long are jews gonna whine about the holocaust?

 

[rexlunae]

who gets to define "fair"?

you seem to equate "fair" with "racially balanced"

It's supposed to be a jury of the accused's peers. I.e., a random sampling of the people. If you allow a bunch of dismissals for no reason, it distorts the randomness of the sample.

as you've been shown, blacks often refuse to convict other blacks, regardless of the testimony or evidence

is that fair?

That's a blatant racist stereotype not supported by any actual evidence, and I'm not convinced it's any more true than for any other race.

 

[ok doser]

It's supposed to be a jury of the accused's peers. I.e., a random sampling of the people.

if i am upper class, are lower class people my peers?

if i am a man, are women my peers?

If you allow a bunch of dismissals for no reason, it distorts the randomness of the sample.

of course - that's the way the game is set up to be played - both sides get to try to distort it to their benefit

That's a blatant racist stereotype not supported by any actual evidence, and I'm not convinced it's any more true than for any other race.

so it's a lie and even if it isn't, the other guys do it too? :chuckle:

i gave evidence

feel free to google for more

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's supposed to be a jury of the accused's peers.

The constitution does not say anything about the jury being composed of the accused's peers.

 

[bybee]

It's supposed to be a jury of the accused's peers. I.e., a random sampling of the people. If you allow a bunch of dismissals for no reason, it distorts the randomness of the sample.



That's a blatant racist stereotype not supported by any actual evidence, and I'm not convinced it's any more true than for any other race.

You know Rex this conversation has raised a new question in my mind: Who are the peers of a victim of crime? And ought the victim's peers be included in the jury?

 

[rexlunae]

if i am upper class, are lower class people my peers?

Yes.

if i am a man, are women my peers?

Yes.

of course - that's the way the game is set up to be played - both sides get to try to distort it to their benefit

And those of us who care about justice try to write the rules to stop them from having an unfair advantage.

so it's a lie and even if it isn't, the other guys do it too? :chuckle:

i gave evidence

What evidence?

 

[Granite]

The constitution does not say anything about the jury being composed of the accused's peers.

The quick and speedy part is in there and juries are drawn from one's peers slash equals.