Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

[rexlunae]

would statistics that show racial bias qualify for cause?

No.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The important thing, in American law, is that the panel of jurors be broadly representative of the public in general. A panel selected by either side or both in concert is generally less representative that it would be if selected at random.

There is no reason for a panel of jurors to be broadly representative of the public in general.

"The very idea of a jury is a body . . . composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds." Strauder, supra, at 308;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/79.html

Yes, that is what a jury is supposed to be, but you won't find any example where a person's neighbors and associates (people who actually know the person) are allowed on the jury.

 

[ok doser]

You have plenty of equals. There's resurrected, koban, some other dude, resodko.

Now that's prejudice.

yeah, but those guys all hate each other

 

[rexlunae]

the defense gets the same number of peremptory challenges as the prosecution, right?

That doesn't mean that the resulting panel is broadly representative. If one side is eliminating minorities from the panel because of their minority status, they're likely to be replaced by members of the majority. There's not a lot the other side could do, and they'd have to break the law to do it.

 

[rexlunae]

There is no reason for a panel of jurors to be broadly representative of the public in general.


Yes, that is what a jury is supposed to be, but you won't find any example where a person's neighbors and associates (people who actually know the person) are allowed on the jury.

Take it up with the Supreme Court. And you want people who are impartial, so an actual neighbor would be a bad candidate. We're talking about someone who could be a neighbor, not someone who is.

 

[ok doser]

would statistics that show bias on any other basis be allowable?

i'm thinking of women, for example, being excluded from a rape trial by the defense

 

[genuineoriginal]

That doesn't mean that the resulting panel is broadly representative.

Once again.
There is no reason for a panel of jurors to be broadly representative of the public in general.

 

[Granite]

My point is that the concept of peers from English Law does not apply to American Law.

Do you think both ok doser and rexlunae are your peers?
Would you want both ok doser and rexlunae on the same jury at your trial?

As I understand it the term "peer" in this case means "equal." And notices for jury duty are not respecters of persons, so to speak. In the eyes of the law, yes, we'd be considered peers.

 

[rexlunae]

would statistics that show bias on any other basis be allowable?

i'm thinking of women, for example, being excluded from a rape trial by the defense

Nope.

 

[rexlunae]

Once again.
There is no reason for a panel of jurors to be broadly representative of the public in general.

And once again, the Supreme Court disagrees. Take it up with them.

 

[ok doser]

Nope.

and yet, i'm sure it happens

 

[rocketman]

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,.

Your assertion is that the prosecution hand pics juries with no say from the defense which is simply not the case. Incidentally your comment above is about as racist as it comes, not to mention just plain false. The only way racial minority convictions will go down is when they decide not to commit crimes... It is as simple as that.

 

[rexlunae]

and yet, i'm sure it happens

And if so...my solution for the racial bias should help that too.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The important thing, in American law, is that the panel of jurors be broadly representative of the public in general. A panel selected by either side or both in concert is generally less representative that it would be if selected at random.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html

"The very idea of a jury is a body . . . composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds." Strauder, supra, at 308;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/79.html

American law was drawn from English law. If you cared anything about the constitution, this would matter to you. The bastardisation of the constitution by scotus is what you think matters. This is why your kind go through hell and high water to make damned sure no strict constructionists are ever allowed to be part of scotus.

 

[rexlunae]

Your assertion is that the prosecution hand pics juries with no say from the defense which is simply not the case.

No, that wasn't my assertion. Not sure where you got that.

Incidentally your comment above is about as racist as it comes, not to mention just plain false.

Right. It's racist to notice racism. That's right-wing logic for you.

The only way racial minority convictions will go down is when they decide not to commit crimes... It is as simple as that.

I'm inclined to let that statement speak for itself.

 

[rexlunae]

American law was drawn from English law. If you cared anything about the constitution, this would matter to you. The bastardisation of the constitution by scotus is what you think matters. This is why your kind go through hell and high water to make damned sure no strict constructionists are ever allowed to be part of scotus.

The problem with self-styled "strict constructionists" is that they think the way they view the Constitution is the only one that's valid. The problem is, the Constitution doesn't work very well viewed in this light. If you can read through the Bill of Rights, or the Fourteenth Amendment, and tell me in detail what all of the intended implications of all of those laws are, without any interpretation, you must be some kind of Constitutional wizard. And I see no reason to believe that of you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The problem with self-styled "strict constructionists" is that they think the way they view the Constitution is the only one that's valid.

That is because there is only one view that is valid.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That is because there is only one view that is valid.

Which was that of the authors, and that view doesn't neatly mesh with religion meddling with matters of state

 

[genuineoriginal]

Which was that of the authors, and that view doesn't neatly mesh with religion meddling with matters of state

The view of the authors of the Constitution is that the Federal government has no right to mess with religion, but that each State had sovereignty to establish a State religion if they so desired, and that each person appointed or elected to office in the Federal government was to bring their religious beliefs with them so they had a real basis for making moral decisions.

 

[Granite]

The view of the authors of the Constitution is that the Federal government has no right to mess with religion, but that each State had sovereignty to establish a State religion if they so desired, and that each person appointed or elected to office in the Federal government was to bring their religious beliefs with them so they had a real basis for making moral decisions.

That dog don't hunt. They specifically prohibited religious tests for office.