|
For me this video right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9SJPa_dF8 Everything wrong with American justice in less than a minute. Justice and impartiality are lies. It's not unfair by mistake, It's unfair by design. It was always about control and never about justice. Innocent people get ducked in because people like this mother fucker want more people in to scare everyone into total capitulation. http://www.npr.org/2015/11/02/452898470/supreme-court-takes-on-racial-discrimination-in-jury-selection quote:The U.S. Supreme Court wrestles Monday with a problem that has long plagued the criminal justice system: race discrimination in the selection of jurors. The link has a picture of the prosecutors notes where the highlighted all the black jurors with a "B".
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 02:54 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:35 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The link has a picture of the prosecutors notes where the highlighted all the black jurors with a "B".
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 07:56 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:For me this video right here: This is from 1987
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 19:58 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is from 1987 And yet nothing has changed since then to prevent the exact same thing from happening.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:06 |
|
I'm honestly amazed the Supreme Court agreed to hear this, though on the other hand they already ruled that racism is over so...
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:12 |
|
Stereotype posted:And yet nothing has changed since then to prevent the exact same thing from happening. Yeah nothing about race relations has changed in America since 1987, the year it stopped being totally legal to dismiss jurors just for being black.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:13 |
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah nothing about race relations has changed in America since 1987, the year it stopped being totally legal to dismiss jurors just for being black. It's still totally legal to dismiss jurors just for being black as long as you don't say that's why you're doing it, however; hence, the case.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:15 |
|
eSports Chaebol posted:It's still totally legal to dismiss jurors just for being black as long as you don't say that's why you're doing it, however; hence, the case. The case is from 1987
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:26 |
|
Jarmak posted:The case is from 1987 The case is from 1987 but the article refers to some kind of current deliberation, I'm not sure what exactly it's suggesting is happening though. Unless it's only just reached the supreme court. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 3, 2015 |
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:37 |
|
What would happen if it simply became impossible to strike jurors unless they had a direct conflict of interest with the case?
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:46 |
|
-Troika- posted:What would happen if it simply became impossible to strike jurors unless they had a direct conflict of interest with the case? Well we would have, like, 40 person juries for one thing
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:55 |
|
OwlFancier posted:The case is from 1987 but the article refers to some kind of current deliberation, I'm not sure what exactly it's suggesting is happening though. The original case is from 1987 and had been long done with, but then just recently Freedom of Information type stuff let people get ahold of the prosecution's notes from the 1987 case, which show the highlighting of black jurors with the letter B and etc. So this case is kind of being brought on this new evidence of discrimination.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:57 |
|
The B stands for Barry Soetoro.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 20:59 |
|
Dr. Tough posted:Well we would have, like, 40 person juries for one thing Well, assuming you can only take jurors up to the usual limit, of course.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 21:00 |
|
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 21:03 |
|
OwlFancier posted:The case is from 1987 but the article refers to some kind of current deliberation, I'm not sure what exactly it's suggesting is happening though. Yes, its only just reached the supreme court -Troika- posted:What would happen if it simply became impossible to strike jurors unless they had a direct conflict of interest with the case? Jurors can lie about bias just as well as prosecutors can lie about racial discrimination, as the article mentions there's no real easy solution to this because defense attorney's are just as keen to retain the ability to do peremptory strikes as prosecutors are.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 21:28 |
|
Jarmak posted:This is from 1987 quote:Studies have shown that these proffered reasons are often a mere pretext for racial discrimination. A North Carolina study of jury selection in 173 death penalty cases found that black prospective jurors were more than twice as likely to be struck by the prosecution as similarly situated white jurors. A 2003 study of 390 felony jury trials prosecuted in Jefferson Parish, La., found that black prospective jurors were struck at three times the rate of whites. And in Houston County, Ala., prosecutors between 2005 and 2009 used their peremptory strikes to eliminate 80 percent of the blacks qualified for jury service in death penalty cases. The result was that half of these juries were all white, and the remainder had only a single black member, even though the county is 27 percent black.
|
# ? Nov 3, 2015 22:19 |
|
Oh yes I'm quite sure that if you cherry pick the worst of the south it's completely hosed to this day, there's no easy answer to the issue though, especially when there's still areas where human actors that make up the entire system just wholesale doesn't want to do what its supposed to do. Its not however: Mandy Thompson posted:
One must also remember that there are many other racial disparities in this country that present legit reasons for removing a juror, such as criminal background. Without knowing more its kind of like throwing out your computer because the power has gone out, if you want to fix problems its kind of important to separate the source of the problem from the second order effects of the symptoms.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 00:11 |
|
Jarmak posted:One must also remember that there are many other racial disparities in this country that present legit reasons for removing a juror, such as criminal background. Without knowing more its kind of like throwing out your computer because the power has gone out, if you want to fix problems its kind of important to separate the source of the problem from the second order effects of the symptoms. It's still pretty drat insidious when "legitimate" reasons bar members of a socially-imposed criminal underclass from having a supposed check they are supposed to have against the creation of such an underclass, though!
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 00:44 |
|
Jarmak posted:Oh yes I'm quite sure that if you cherry pick the worst of the south it's completely hosed to this day, there's no easy answer to the issue though, especially when there's still areas where human actors that make up the entire system just wholesale doesn't want to do what its supposed to do. Its not however: I am pretty sure you don't need to use your peremptory strikes for that.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 01:18 |
|
Jarmak posted:Oh yes I'm quite sure that if you cherry pick the worst of the south it's completely hosed to this day, there's no easy answer to the issue though, especially when there's still areas where human actors that make up the entire system just wholesale doesn't want to do what its supposed to do. Its not however: It's good to know that no matter what facts you're presented with your analysis stays the exact same: it's not a problem, and if it is a problem we can't do anything about it. I am sure you are debating this in good faith though.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 01:51 |
|
Its not the just south that is the problem
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 02:19 |
|
Helsing posted:It's good to know that no matter what facts you're presented with your analysis stays the exact same: it's not a problem, and if it is a problem we can't do anything about it. I am sure you are debating this in good faith though. I didn't say there wasn't a problem I said I think the selection process isn't the source of it. The rest of my post was literally the same conclusion the npr article came to.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 03:00 |
|
Jarmak posted:I didn't say there wasn't a problem I said I think the selection process isn't the source of it. What is the source?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 04:10 |
|
Lid posted:What is the source? Of there being a disproportionate number of black jurors dismissed? The two biggest but non-exhaustive reasons I suspect off the top of my head are racism of individual actors and the disproportionate amount of black people involved in the criminal justice system. The second doesn't just mean people dismissed because they have criminal records, but also people who have friends and family who are involved in the system, and also that fact that (as the statistics bear out) black people on the jury are more likely to be skeptical of police testimony. That last bit is kind of interesting because getting rid of someone from the jury who is less likely to find your witnesses credible is kind of the point, but for obvious reasons in this case is completely inappropriate. It does however create incentive for prosecutors who play loose with the rules to try to get rid of black jurors without having any sort of racist motivation behind it.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 05:09 |
|
Do the jury the jury selection and interviews through a computer with the jurors sitting in a separate room. Gender, race, religion, appearance etc- none of it should matter. Would be cool if the jury never got to know the gender and race of the defendant either but small steps.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 09:55 |
|
Jarmak posted:Of there being a disproportionate number of black jurors dismissed? The two biggest but non-exhaustive reasons I suspect off the top of my head are racism of individual actors and the disproportionate amount of black people involved in the criminal justice system. The second doesn't just mean people dismissed because they have criminal records, but also people who have friends and family who are involved in the system, and also that fact that (as the statistics bear out) black people on the jury are more likely to be skeptical of police testimony. Racist motivation doesn't matter. It has a racist effect.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 10:21 |
|
Obdicut posted:Racist motivation doesn't matter. It has a racist effect. Uh yeah no poo poo Jarmak posted:for obvious reasons in this case is completely inappropriate
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:17 |
|
Anosmoman posted:Do the jury the jury selection and interviews through a computer with the jurors sitting in a separate room. Gender, race, religion, appearance etc- none of it should matter. Would be cool if the jury never got to know the gender and race of the defendant either but small steps. That would actually be interesting as an experiment to see the effects.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 17:04 |
|
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say Jarmak, can you clarify the point that you want to make about this? vvv Thanks. That clears it up. captainblastum fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:25 |
|
captainblastum posted:I'm really not sure what you're trying to say Jarmak, can you clarify the point that you want to make about this? That racially disparate outcomes in jury selection are second order effects from racial disparity in other aspects of the system/society. That the selection process itself is not broken as some posters have declared, and loving with it is going to cause more harm then good.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:38 |
|
So being judged by your peers isn't a problem when you're a minority and they stack the jury with white people? It may not be problem #1 or or even #10 but fixing it so a defendant being tried for things like driving while black may actually get a fair trial if the jury has people on it that have experienced the same profiling. Convincing 12 white people that a black defendant is being railroaded is just a bit harder.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 23:11 |
|
Jarmak posted:That racially disparate outcomes in jury selection are second order effects from racial disparity in other aspects of the system/society. That the selection process itself is not broken as some posters have declared, and loving with it is going to cause more harm then good. Same, but for movie theaters, restaurants, beaches, housing, and employment.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 01:24 |
|
Jarmak posted:That racially disparate outcomes in jury selection are second order effects from racial disparity in other aspects of the system/society. That the selection process itself is not broken as some posters have declared, and loving with it is going to cause more harm then good. It is a second order effect which reinforces first order effects. That's a really, really big problem. It's cyclical, like redlining: surely most realtors do it because they care about keeping house prices up rather than because they are racist, but the very fact that segregation keeps house prices up is enabled in part by redlining.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 01:27 |
|
Jarmak posted:Of there being a disproportionate number of black jurors dismissed? The two biggest but non-exhaustive reasons I suspect off the top of my head are racism of individual actors and the disproportionate amount of black people involved in the criminal justice system. The second doesn't just mean people dismissed because they have criminal records, but also people who have friends and family who are involved in the system, and also that fact that (as the statistics bear out) black people on the jury are more likely to be skeptical of police testimony. They're not being asked whether they have friends and family in the system and then being dismissed based on that totally valid reason, though. So either prosecutors are just assuming it solely based on the color of their skin (which is racist, and leads to more uncomfortable questions like why they're content to rely entirely on statistics rather than just asking, and don't seem concerned about white jurors possibly having someone in the system), or you're wrong.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 03:13 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:For me this video right here: Eat some roast beef sandwiches with horseradish, then get to work on this problem. We're all counting on you -- and delicious, nourishing beef. Hopefully the supreme court will do something about this travesty, and eat their sandwiches before they get to work.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 03:52 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Eat some roast beef sandwiches with horseradish, then get to work on this problem. We're all counting on you -- and delicious, nourishing beef. huh?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 05:37 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're not being asked whether they have friends and family in the system and then being dismissed based on that totally valid reason, though. So either prosecutors are just assuming it solely based on the color of their skin (which is racist, and leads to more uncomfortable questions like why they're content to rely entirely on statistics rather than just asking, and don't seem concerned about white jurors possibly having someone in the system), or you're wrong. Or you don't know how a challenge for cause works, because that alone would not get someone dismissed, and its very likely the prosecutor did ask them that as those are the types of questions attorneys base their use of peremptory challenges on. eSports Chaebol posted:It is a second order effect which reinforces first order effects. That's a really, really big problem. It's cyclical, like redlining: surely most realtors do it because they care about keeping house prices up rather than because they are racist, but the very fact that segregation keeps house prices up is enabled in part by redlining. Except redlining isn't playing a an irreplaceable role in the justice system that both sides of the courtroom agrees needs to be there. Also by claiming this a cyclical effect you're making an awful big assumption that being less likely to convict means more likely to have the correct verdict.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 21:18 |
|
Jarmak posted:Or you don't know how a challenge for cause works, because that alone would not get someone dismissed, and its very likely the prosecutor did ask them that as those are the types of questions attorneys base their use of peremptory challenges on. This isn't about challenge for cause, though. It's about peremptory strikes. Prosecutors use their peremptory strikes on black jurors, and when challenged to provide a nonracial reason for the strike, they say the juror "looked bored" or "didn't make eye contact", not "they had a relative in prison". Did you actually read the OP?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 22:37 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:35 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:This isn't about challenge for cause, though. It's about peremptory strikes. Prosecutors use their peremptory strikes on black jurors, and when challenged to provide a nonracial reason for the strike, they say the juror "looked bored" or "didn't make eye contact", not "they had a relative in prison". Did you actually read the OP? Apparently you didn't because that part was talking specifically about the 1987 case
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 22:57 |