|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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:Jesus Christ I'm not misrepresenting anything, I was responding specifically to Painframe's allegation that prosecutors never use any excuses other then bullshit like "he looked nervous" , of which he was concluding solely from that single case. Do you think it is possible that any prosecutor anywhere,  aside from a single case in 1987 , has used peremptory strikes, intentionally or not, for racist reasons?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
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. Proving intent or motivation is almost impossible though, which is why a standard such as avoiding the appearance of impropriety is necessary (and as an added bonus it's also a face-saving measure).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:Jury selection should be eliminated- you should just have to put up with the jury you have. Isn't this how the UK does it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 23:12
|
|