|
Aesop Poprock posted:Is there a way for me to blend "Jarmak is right and probably the most sensible person in this thread" with "it's extremely lovely that this is so obviously a thing" cause that's kind of where I am atm Jarmak is right that it is a symptom, not the disease. He is wrong that you can not/should not take steps to mitigate symptoms while also looking to address the underlying disease.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^ & Jarmak posted:What steps do you think can/should be taken? Alternative jury selection methodologies, some of which have already been presented Recording / making public attorney/firm based jury decisions Stronger scrutiny over stated jury elimination reasoning
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The most important question, though, is "how?". Allow independent investigation, follow over the course of a career to detect patterns, make it public - create public pressure to defy patterns, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:By who? The judges, who have shown minimal interest in giving any teeth to the already existing remedies for racism? Or are we going to create some independent outside body for the purpose of tracking the racial composition of prosecutors' peremptory strike usage? Yes. The question of whether there is political will to do it is independent of "there is nothing that can be done." quote:Technically, the problem is not that the prosecutor can make up reasons - anyone can make poo poo up, and the judicial system in particular is supposed to be able to handle that. The problem is that the judges are buying those made-up reasons, no matter how flawed or out-of-place or inaccurate or vague they are, and if the defense manages to successfully challenge one of those reasons then the judge just offers the prosecutor a chance to make up a new one. The problem is not that prosecutors are lying or that there is a lack of oversight, the problem is that the existing oversight mechanism is letting prosecutors lie because, for whatever reason, the judges that evaluate those reasons the prosecutors give are not interested in providing real oversight and instead let prosecutors get away with anything they want. Right, but if an evaluation of an attorney shows that over the course of their career they strike minorities for "reasons" that are easily applied (but aren't) to other eligible jurors, then action can be taken. Dead Reckoning posted: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? I see nothing wrong with public outcry over perceived abuse of the judicial system. I said nothing about establishing quotas. Is there something de facto wrong with the idea of public oversight of the criminal justice system?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, the question of whether anyone is willing to act against racism is pretty loving important. No rule can survive if no one is willing to enforce it. Which is exactly the problem with Batson challenges now! I did not say it was unimportant, I said it was independent. If there is no political will then it doesn't matter what is proposed. Conversely, it is still useful to discuss ways to improve the system even if there is no political will, because things can change.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 23:06
|
|