Supreme Court takes up systematic bias against black jurors.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Supreme Court takes up systematic bias against black jurors.

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Useful Distraction posted:

If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from.

You do realize that this describes more or less every function of government, yes? Most of them persist in their present form, not because everyone wants to keep their tools for getting their racism out, but because there are no good alternatives.

# ¿ Nov 6, 2015 17:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 03:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Useful Distraction posted:

If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from.

This is hella dumb. Standardized academic testing routinely has racially disparate outcomes. This is not because the college board or academia as a whole are secretly sneering racists, it's because the systemic issues of race in America mean that students of color are less likely to go to high quality schools or have access to specialized test prep materials than whites. The problem is not that asking people which word is most like the other or having them solve algebra problems is somehow racist, and the solution is not to abolish the concept of academic testing; it's to solve the underlying issues that disadvantage minority students in the first place.

Similarly, the problem of prosecutors being motivated to use their peremptory strikes to eliminate black jurors for being less likely to convict isn't best solved by eliminating peremptory strikes, it's best solved by addressing the underlying issues of distrust and racism that make black Americans have such a different experience of the justice system in the first place.

Woozy posted:

Proving racism isn't any more difficult than proving any other form of intent or motivation that the courts routinely deal with. The only problem complicating the issue of racial discrimination in the carceral system is that the stewards of that system don't want to actually fix it.

In most cases, the courts don't deal with motivation. No one cares why you stole a car with respect to the facts of the case. With intent, in many cases, it is assumed that someone intended the logical outcome of their actions. Plus, saying that you and your friends believe an action is racially motivated is different from proving it.

Ytlaya posted:

I don't think that the issue is so much that Jarmak wants to maintain the status quo (though he clearly doesn't consider changing it to be a high priority). I think that he just has this image in his head of a dumb/naive leftist and cannot bring himself to appear to agree with one (or someone he perceives to be one). I think this actually applies to many of the people who do nothing but attack and nitpick the arguments people make on various social justice-related issues like this. They're not so dumb that they actually believe the racism/discrimination in situations like this to be actually good or justified, but they also don't want to be associated with the people who are more actively against it.

Why is it so hard for posters here to believe that other people actually disagree with them because they think their ideas are poorly conceived, not out of some bizarre, irrational hatred of pinko commies?

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 09:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Main Paineframe posted:

There's plenty of direct institutional racism in the school system itself, including in standardized tests themselves. It's not all just economic class-based effects from things like going to worse schools or not being able to afford high-powered tutors - there is a distinct racial factor as well. In fact, the race-disparate design of standardized tests has been one of the most publicized aspects of that.

Courts deal with motivation all the time, it's a critical factor in determining many crimes. For example, one critical aspect of any drug case is what you intended to do with them, as it determines whether you're getting charged with possession or possession with intent to distribute.

There is no evidence of a race-based design behind standardized tests. The latest study from 2010 concluded that, based on the authors' assessment of which members of a small group of students were sufficiently similar to allow for comparison, white students did better on easier verbal questions, while black students did better on more difficult verbal questions. (Interestingly, there was no gap observed between white and Latino students.) Hardly a smoking gun. The authors conclude based on this that the language being tested is more reflective of the language or dialect white students are exposed to than black students. Even if we assume that this is correct, the SAT is designed to predict first-year college success, and the language in the questions is based on the formal academic syntax and diction students are likely to encounter in college. The problem isn't "black people talk like this, white�people talk like this," it's that black students aren't getting exposure to the academic language they will encounter in college.

IANAL, but possession with intent to distribute is usually assumed based on having drugs in greater amounts than are suitable for personal use. The prosecutor doesn't have to reach into the defendant's mind and show he was planning to sell drugs, just that he was in possession of wholesale quantities. This is actually similar to how Batson challenges work: if a prosecutor disproportionately eliminates black jurors, it is assumed it was for racial reasons unless the prosecutor can provide a non-racial justification for the strikes. In the case before the Supreme Court now, even the non-racial justifications are being scrutinized, because the prosecutor communicated his intent to strike jurors on the basis of race, much like how a defendant's communications with customers might be used to counter his defense that he truly did intend to smoke all that weed himself.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 18:12

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

You can't just say, "things are bad and need to change" while making no attempt to examine why the current status quo came about in the first place, and refusing to offer any sort of concrete proposal of changes that could be considered on their merits.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 21:17

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

You're ignoring the fact that people can look at the system and say, "whoops, even though it has flaws, it looks like it exists in its present form for a good reason, and all the proposed alternatives are worse." You're like the guy who looks at an airplane crash and concludes that the best solution is to eliminate the pilots and let computers do the flying.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Nov 11, 2015

# ¿ Nov 11, 2015 04:27

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

No point in reinforcing cockpit doors I guess, let's just fix all of the underlying problems that create terrorism, and then all this hijacking trouble will be over.

Here's a thought: not all problems are equally amenable to easy, legal, technical solutions.

VitalSigns posted:

Why not do something similar to what other multiethnic societies do in power-sharing agreements, something like what we already do under the UCMJ by allowing an enlisted defendant to demand that at least one-third of the jury be made up of enlisted servicemembers.

Gee, I dunno, maybe because it isn't 1860 any more, and blacks are no longer legally required to show whites respect and deference, making their situation not comparable to that of officers and enlisted, maybe because we shouldn't adopt the worst practices of lovely, strife-riven tribal states, or maybe�because the entire point of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act was to abolish the creation of different classes of citizens who get different legal privileges based on their skin color?

How the entire gently caress did you manage to type that sentence without realizing how horrible and un-American it was?

Also, fun fact, most JAGs will advise you not to take the enlisted jury. It's a great way to get a panel of senior NCOs who will absolutely hammer you.

Ytlaya posted:

Also, it sure is easy to say that the current system is the best when you're not part of a demographic that is being screwed over by it. Even if the current system was the best (which I find extremely doubtful), I would still not fault disadvantaged groups for saying "gently caress you" towards the people advocating for the status quo.

Being a member of a disadvantaged group does not give you a pass on having to articulate a rational and coherent basis for changes to the law.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Nov 11, 2015

# ¿ Nov 11, 2015 08:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 03:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

How does giving a defendant the right to demand a proportion of the jury be made up of his own ethnic group (in the face of proven discrimination against his ethnic group in jury selection in order to bias the justice system against him and deny him an equitable trial) constitute creating special classes of people who get legal privileges based on skin color?

Let me get this straight, so you can't accuse me of misrepresenting your position:
The whole point of Batson was that intentionally tilting the racial makeup of juries in order to get a result is bad and wrong. It turns out that enforcing the court's order is a little difficult, because it's easy for a prosecutor to come up with a reason to dismiss a juror s/he doesn't like. Your solution to this is, "screw it, let's just make explicit discrimination the law of the land instead."?

VitalSigns posted:

Is this seriously all you've got, "no you're the real racist"? Be a little imaginative please. My proposal doesn't even give anyone special privileges because it is that any defendant would have the right to demand a minimum proportion of their ethnic group on the jury. Is an enlisted person's right to demand enlisted people on the jury a "special privilege"?

You personally being a racist or not is immaterial to how bad and stupid your proposal is. If a south-east Asian immigrant is on trial for rape or honor killing, he gets to insist that his jury include members of his tribe, who no doubt better understand the struggles he's going through to maintain family honor in a godless western society? Would a Chinese-American defendant have to make do with any asians that the prosecutor found acceptable, or could they insist on fellow Chinese? Do defendants get to define their own ethnic group, or will the government be deciding which ethnic identities are and aren't valid? Leaving the hilarious unworkability aside, do you think there might be bad to abandon the idea that juries are supposed to be neutral finders of facts, rather than a vehicle for expressing citizen sentiment? Because that's what you're doing if you say that someone can't get a fair trial unless they have people from their group judging them.

And yes, an enlisted man's right to have other enlisted on the jury is absolutely a special privilege, but the military is a stratified, caste-based society with an explicit class system. We're trying to move away from that sort of thing in civil governance.

VitalSigns posted:

E: If you think peremptory strikes are too important to get rid of then okay, but in the face of evidence that they're used to secretly racially tilt the makeup of juries, we either need to require prosecutors to give a valid reason for every strike, or allow peremptory strikes but give the defense the option to require some minimal racial makeup of the jury.

This is literally what prosecutors have to do during a Batson challenge. I guess you're actually OK with the current system then?

archangelwar posted:

Allow independent investigation, follow over the course of a career to detect patterns, make it public - create public pressure to defy patterns, etc.

So you're going to try publicly shame prosecutors if they don't meet some sort of arbitrary racial quota in their use of peremptory strikes?

# ¿ Nov 11, 2015 19:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Supreme Court takes up systematic bias against black jurors.