Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Sulphagnist
Oct 10, 2006

WARNING! INTRUDERS DETECTED

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.

A cool idea, but the prosecution would probably still figure out a way to game the system and profile the jurors based on the details and answers given.

Or it might just turn into systematically striking off poor jurors which I guess would be a slight improvement.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Jarmak posted:

Apparently you didn't because that part was talking specifically about the 1987 case

One court case is still more informative than your unsupported speculation, unless you think the 1987 case was some crazy outlier. If prosecutors were striking black jurors for the reason you propose, they'd give that reason when faced with a Batson challenge. But they don't.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

Main Paineframe posted:

One court case is still more informative than your unsupported speculation, unless you think the 1987 case was some crazy outlier. If prosecutors were striking black jurors for the reason you propose, they'd give that reason when faced with a Batson challenge. But they don't.

And you know this based on the fact a single prosecutor in a single court case that happened almost 30 years ago in the deep south didn't?

Cockmaster
Feb 24, 2002

Antti posted:

A cool idea, but the prosecution would probably still figure out a way to game the system and profile the jurors based on the details and answers given.

Or it might just turn into systematically striking off poor jurors which I guess would be a slight improvement.

Wouldn't either of those require asking at least a noticeable number of obviously irrelevant questions?

And is it really that common for bigoted shitheads to have the necessary cultural knowledge to accurately strike the intended people?

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Jarmak posted:

Apparently you didn't because that part was talking specifically about the 1987 case

quote:

"Numerous studies demonstrate that prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors at significantly higher rates than white jurors."

Those are not the words of the defense in the case. They come from a group of highly regarded prosecutors, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, who have filed a friend-of-the-court brief siding with Timothy Foster, who was convicted and sentenced to death in the killing of an elderly white woman in Georgia.

WorldsStongestNerd
Apr 28, 2010

by Fluffdaddy
It seems like one of two things are going on
1. Prosecutors are deliberately axing black jurors because of racism on thier part in a broken jury selection process.

2. Prosecutors have good reasons to ax black jurors because black jurors are more likely to have a criminal record, or know the defendant, or be poorly educated, or any of several other reasons. These realities are the result of racism in the rest of society, not a broken juror selection process or racist prosecutors.


It seems similar to the problem of racial profiling. Even if a police department did not contain a single racist, the racist effects of our society means that blacks commit more crime, so racial profiling becomes a valuable strategy.

Useful Distraction
Jan 11, 2006
not a pyramid scheme

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.

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

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

WorldsStrongestNerd posted:

It seems like one of two things are going on
1. Prosecutors are deliberately axing black jurors because of racism on thier part in a broken jury selection process.

2. Prosecutors have good reasons to ax black jurors because black jurors are more likely to have a criminal record, or know the defendant, or be poorly educated, or any of several other reasons. These realities are the result of racism in the rest of society, not a broken juror selection process or racist prosecutors.


It seems similar to the problem of racial profiling. Even if a police department did not contain a single racist, the racist effects of our society means that blacks commit more crime, so racial profiling becomes a valuable strategy.

The problem with #2 is that prosecutors are allowed to ask jury members questions, and if they face a Barton challenge then they have to tell the judge the non-racist reason that they struck the juror, even if it was a peremptory strike. If they think the juror is poorly educated or has a criminal record, which they have the ability to find out without resorting to blind profiling, they'd just give that reason. That's what makes it so egregious - if they really had a non-racist reason to strike the jurors, they'd just give that reason. The fact that they often give vague reasons, or don't strike white jurors for the same reason they gave for striking black jurors, suggests racism.

Another reason #2 doesn't hold up is that racial profiling to filter for things like education level or criminal record is unnecessary because they can directly ask about those things. They don't need to guess at education level based on skin color, they can ask a juror what their education level is. That's how they manage to filter out highly educated jurors without spending all their strikes purging the jury of white people because they're statistically more likely to be well educated.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005


Except we were talking about the part of the article that talks about the reasons the prosecutor gives, what does the section you quoted have to do with that at all? Have you read the thread? Cause you don't seem to even understand what Painframe and I are arguing about.

Main Paineframe posted:

The problem with #2 is that prosecutors are allowed to ask jury members questions, and if they face a Barton challenge then they have to tell the judge the non-racist reason that they struck the juror, even if it was a peremptory strike. If they think the juror is poorly educated or has a criminal record, which they have the ability to find out without resorting to blind profiling, they'd just give that reason. That's what makes it so egregious - if they really had a non-racist reason to strike the jurors, they'd just give that reason. The fact that they often give vague reasons, or don't strike white jurors for the same reason they gave for striking black jurors, suggests racism.

Another reason #2 doesn't hold up is that racial profiling to filter for things like education level or criminal record is unnecessary because they can directly ask about those things. They don't need to guess at education level based on skin color, they can ask a juror what their education level is. That's how they manage to filter out highly educated jurors without spending all their strikes purging the jury of white people because they're statistically more likely to be well educated.

You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down?

Useful Distraction posted:

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

This is an absolutely ridiculous, contemptible statement. Yes let's gently caress with a core constitutional right without understanding the problem in depth, I'm angry, lazy, and critical thinking is too hard.

Nonsense
Jan 26, 2007

How many black people do you keep off juries Jarmak? On average?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

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.

treasured8elief
Jul 25, 2011

Salad Prong

Jarmak posted:

You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down?
"Blacks from low income areas are less likely to convict, and as a result you don't want those people on your jury."

I'm sorry, but I believe that prosecutors who assure themselves they're being realistic by focusing racially, that they're just professionals trying to win their case, are still absolutely racist. Just because they don't gain any personal satisfaction from acting so doesn't make their actions right.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

tentative8e8op posted:

"Blacks from low income areas are less likely to convict, and as a result you don't want those people on your jury."

I'm sorry, but I believe that prosecutors who assure themselves they're being realistic by focusing racially, that they're just professionals trying to win their case, are still absolutely racist. Just because they don't gain any personal satisfaction from acting so doesn't make their actions right.

Well yes, that's the position I'm arguing? The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I'm going into the why black jurors from low income areas are less likely to convict.

Main Paineframe is trying to rebut this for some reason.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Jarmak posted:

Except we were talking about the part of the article that talks about the reasons the prosecutor gives, what does the section you quoted have to do with that at all? Have you read the thread? Cause you don't seem to even understand what Painframe and I are arguing about.

No, I understand perfectly well that you're trying to argue that blacks are struck from Juries at disproportionately high rates because they are also more likely to fall into the other kinds of categories that prosecutor's like to eliminate.

The problem is that you're providing no evidence while seriously misrepresenting what the article posted in the op actually says. For instance you claim that the article only deals with a case from the 1980s when in fact the article mentions various other studies that find a continued and systematic bias. You also claim that there's universal support for the current system of striking jurors amongst both defense attornies and prosecutors - a claim that is, again, contradicted by the article posted in the op, where we find attorneys and judges criticizing the system and its outcomes. You also keep trying to downplay the presence of racism in the system by pretending that racism only happens in the deep south or that race relations in the late 80s have absolutely no bearing on contemporary race relations. These arguments are not convincing and you don't provide any evidence for them at all.

quote:

You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down?

Quite the opposite I think prosecutors are aware that black jurors are less likely to give convictions than white jurors and therefor find spurious reasons to remove black jurors. The reason is not merely because blacks have higher rates of criminality but also because they are much more familiar with the systemic injustices of the contemporary American legal system. The fact they are excluded at higher rates totally demolishes the foundational justifications for jury selection and makes a mockery of what are supposed to be the systems most basic principles of fairness and democracy.

In that video from the op, for instance, the prosecutor explicitly advises that you should select for the dumbest jurors possible. There's absolutely zero reason to think that this piece of advice is out dated: in fact there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is an entirely logical approach for prosecutors to take. So if you really want to defend a system where legal authorities intentionally look for the dumbest (and, one has to think, probably the most racist) jurors possible so as to maintain high conviction rates then go ahead, but maybe put a bit more effort into your arguments than just repeatedly saying "no no your wrong".

Anyway your claims about why black jurors get selected, as well as your claims that any problems are confided to the 20th century deep south, seem pretty implausible in light of articles such as the following:

Judicial Toleration of Racial Bias in the Minnesota Justice System, 25 Hamline Law Review 235-270, 263-264 (Winter, 2002) posted:

William E. Martin and Peter N. Thompson
excerpted from: William E. Martin and Peter N. Thompson, Judicial Toleration of Racial Bias in the Minnesota Justice System, 25 Hamline Law Review 235-270, 263-264 (Winter, 2002)(230 Footnotes Omitted)

Prosecutors and state officials have denied persons of color full participation in the American justice system for decades. As early as 1879, the United States Supreme Court, in Strauder v. West Virginia, loudly denounced the systematic exclusion of Black Americans from jury pools, finding that the practice violated equal protection of the laws. But state officials did not readily embrace this holding. Over the past century, the United States Supreme Court has had to reapply this basic principle to numerous and varied state schemes designed to preclude Blacks from participating on grand juries, petit juries or both. In Rose v. Mitchell, the Court noted that "one hundred and fourteen years after the close of the War Between the States and nearly one hundred years after Strauder, racial and other forms of discrimination remain a fact of life in the administration of justice as in our society as a whole."

The United States Supreme Court has been persistent and consistent in denouncing state discrimination in grand juries and in petit jury pools. When the issue focuses on individualized discrimination against minorities by prosecutors exercising peremptory challenges, however, the Court has been more tolerant of racial discrimination.

In Swain v. Alabama, the Court addressed the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges against African American venirepersons. The Court reiterated the general principle that purposeful discrimination excluding Blacks from the jury was unconstitutional. The Court held, however, that as long as the prosecutor did not systematically remove Blacks from jury service over an extended period of time, no violation occurred. Although there was evidence that, based on the memories of county residents, no African American juror had served in a criminal case in that jurisdiction, the Court found no equal protection violation in Swain. The decision effectively renewed prosecutorial license to use peremptory challenges to keep persons of color off of juries.

In Batson v. Kentucky, the Court modified its holding in Swain and concluded that purposeful discrimination in excluding minorities by peremptory challenges in an individual case could be a violation of equal protection. The Court adopted the elaborate doctrine used for addressing discrimination in civil rights cases to resolve this pre- trial issue. First, counsel must object and establish a prima facie claim of intentional discrimination. The prima facie case can be established by proof that peremptory challenges were used to exclude one or more members of a racial group and that circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race. The trial judge is required to consider "all relevant circumstances."

If a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to state a racially neutral reason for the strikes. If a racially neutral explanation is advanced, the challenger must then prove that the stated reason was pretextual and that striking the minority jurors was necessarily the result of purposeful discrimination. The issue of purposeful discrimination is a factual determination for the trial court that will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Batson, however, has not ended the long-standing practice of excluding persons of color from juries.

In dozens of cases in Minnesota, persons of color have maintained that the prosecutor has used peremptory challenges to intentionally exclude non-white venirepersons. Minnesotans might be pleased to learn that despite these numerous appellate challenges, no appellate decision has yet reversed a trial judge's finding that there was no intentional discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Based on the decisions of the Minnesota appellate courts there would seem not to be a problem in Minnesota. Apparently, attorneys here never use peremptory challenges impermissibly, or trial judges never make mistakes when ruling on Batson challenges. The Minnesota experience is remarkable considering a report that twenty percent of all state court Batson challenges throughout the country have resulted in reversals.

Other evidence calls the holdings of the Minnesota appellate courts into question. Surveys conducted by the Racial Bias Task Force revealed that nearly one-half of the public defenders, and fifty-three percent of the metropolitan judges believe that prosecutors in the state are more likely to use peremptory challenges against jurors who are people of color. Although it is difficult to discern what is occurring at the trial level by reading appellate opinions, the context and sheer number of appeals claiming discrimination raises the question whether discrimination is present, but tolerated by the courts.

In numerous cases, prosecutors have used peremptory challenges to exclude the only minority juror or jurors on the panel, leaving an all white jury to hear the case. Perhaps it is coincidence that prosecutors choose, for reasons unrelated to race, to exclude the only persons of color on these panels. Perhaps racial bias was not implicated in any of the cases. Perhaps Minnesota trial judges, unlike state trial judges throughout the country, are doing a near perfect job of avoiding racial discrimination. But in light of the long history of state attempts to keep persons of color off of juries, and the justice system's poor track record in policing racial bias in other contexts, a different conclusion cannot be rejected out of hand. Perhaps, the Minnesota courts are overly tolerant of racially biased conduct.

The reasons given in cases for excusing prospective jurors, who just happen to be the only persons of color on the panel, often seem contrived or insignificant. Also, these reasons are sometimes developed through intensive adversarial questioning directed exclusively to minority jurors. The Minnesota courts have accepted far-ranging justifications for excluding minority jurors, including the following examples: living in the same neighborhood (North Minneapolis) as the defendant; having experience living in a big city; being new to the neighborhood; working with kids, family members or acquaintances; being involved in the criminal or juvenile justice system; being too quick to answer questions; being youthful and inexperienced; being a foster care worker; knowing a state witness twelve years prior to trial; being too forgiving; participating in a certain life style; or developing a "certain rapport" with adverse counsel.

Several persons of color were struck from juries because they expressed concern about the police or the justice system. Frequently, the concern developed through intensive adversarial questioning, filled with leading questions relating to whether the system was fair to minorities. White venirepersons were not questioned with the same intensity, even though anyone who had read the newspaper reports of the Racial Bias Task Force conclusions would likely have concerns about the fairness of the justice system. Of course, persons of color do not need to read a task force report to know how that justice system treats them.

In State v. Bowers, the Minnesota Supreme Court analyzed a challenge for cause, removing the only Black venireperson after extensive adversarial leading questions about attitudes toward the police and alcohol. The majority found no purposeful discrimination. Justice Wahl, in dissent, however, concluded that the prosecutor's reasons for striking the juror were pretextual. She believed that the prosecutor questioned this African American juror in a manner designed "to invoke a response likely to disqualify her," while the prosecutor had not pursued a similar line of questioning with a white juror who had "a background of personal experiences [that were] virtually indistinguishable." Justice Wahl stated, "racial bias [within the courtroom] mars the integrity of the judicial system and prevents the idea of democratic government from becoming a reality." Ultimately, the harm caused by such "discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community." Certainly, the stories taken back to local communities by the numerous persons of color excluded as the only non-white juror on the panel are stories of unequal treatment by the courts. Ironically, the conclusions fairly reached by members of this community are then used to further exclude them from participation as jurors.

Part of the problem in convincing society that the courts will no longer tolerate discrimination in jury selection is the legal standard set by the United States Supreme Court. To rebut the accused's prima facie case of discrimination, all the prosecutor must do is state a non-discriminatory reason for the strike. The reasons can be insignificant or even implausible.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has embraced this approach in concluding that to rebut the prima facie case the prosecutor's reason need not even make sense. It would seem to be a fairly obvious point that citizens might lack confidence in the fairness of a justice system in which the prosecutor is permitted to exclude minority members from the jury to preserve an all white jury, justifying the action with nonsensical reasons. Racism is serious and should not be explained away by nonsense.

Theoretically, if the prosecutor's explanation for the strike is not reasonable, the court could infer that the prosecutor has engaged in purposeful discrimination. But the Minnesota courts put a heavy burden on the defendant to prove purposeful discrimination. In many of the reported appeals, the trial judges have deferred to the good faith of the prosecutor, and have not carefully scrutinized the prosecutor's explanation. The trial judge's task is complicated by the reality that any finding of intentional discrimination may have serious ethical implications for the prosecutor. It might be appropriate for judges to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt before making any finding that a prosecutor's stated reason is a pretext and the prosecutor has in fact engaged in impermissible racial discrimination. Giving broad deference to prosecutors to protect their professional reputations, however, will lead to the untoward exclusion of minorities from juries.

Not yet having reversed any trial judge's finding on this issue, the appellate courts give great deference to trial judges. Even where trial judges make no findings on the issue of purposeful discrimination, or provide no justification for their decision other than a conclusion that the prosecutor stated a non-discriminatory reason, the appellate courts treat this as an "implicit determination" that there was no purposeful discrimination. Certainly the Minnesota Supreme Court's approach cannot be described as a vigilant protection against racial bias in Minnesota jury selection.

A prime example of the nonsense that passes as equal justice in the Minnesota court system is found in State v. Gaitan. In Gaitan, the prosecutor excused the only person of color in the jury venire. When challenged, the prosecutor stated that the juror was excused because of lack of education and difficulty understanding some terms. The trial judge who presided over the voir dire disagreed and sustained the Batson objection reinstating the juror.

The trial judge, however, allowed the prosecutor to research the issue overnight. The next morning, the prosecutor returned with two additional "race- neutral" explanations and additional elaboration for its previously rejected argument. The trial judge then changed its ruling and denied the Batson objection. The supreme court affirmed the ruling.

If the stated reasons for excluding a person of color do not work, the prosecutor now can spend the night researching the laundry list of acceptable reasons until coming up with one that does work. Certainly, most venirepersons of color would fit some acceptable category. In his dissent in Gaitan, Justice Page stated the obvious:

The Court's decision will encourage and permit prosecutors to offer contrived explanations for challenged peremptory strikes of prospective jurors. As a result, the prohibition that prosecutors not base peremptory strikes in jury selection on race or gender, as required by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ..., may well be rendered meaningless.

One might say that allowing this sort of nonsense to satisfy a requirement under the law will invariably render the law meaningless. In other contexts, the Minnesota Supreme Court has chosen to extend protection to Minnesota citizens under state constitutional grounds. If the Court is serious about restoring confidence that the state justice system provides equal justice and that racism will not be tolerated, it must put an end to the accepted practices resulting in the exclusion of persons of color from juries.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

Helsing posted:

No, I understand perfectly well that you're trying to argue that blacks are struck from Juries at disproportionately high rates because they are also more likely to fall into the other kinds of categories that prosecutor's like to eliminate.

The problem is that you're providing no evidence while seriously misrepresenting what the article posted in the op actually says. For instance you claim that the article only deals with a case from the 1980s when in fact the article mentions various other studies that find a continued and systematic bias. You also claim that there's universal support for the current system of striking jurors amongst both defense attornies and prosecutors - a claim that is, again, contradicted by the article posted in the op, where we find attorneys and judges criticizing the system and its outcomes. You also keep trying to downplay the presence of racism in the system by pretending that racism only happens in the deep south or that race relations in the late 80s have absolutely no bearing on contemporary race relations. These arguments are not convincing and you don't provide any evidence for them at all.


Quite the opposite I think prosecutors are aware that black jurors are less likely to give convictions than white jurors and therefor find spurious reasons to remove black jurors. The reason is not merely because blacks have higher rates of criminality but also because they are much more familiar with the systemic injustices of the contemporary American legal system. The fact they are excluded at higher rates totally demolishes the foundational justifications for jury selection and makes a mockery of what are supposed to be the systems most basic principles of fairness and democracy.

In that video from the op, for instance, the prosecutor explicitly advises that you should select for the dumbest jurors possible. There's absolutely zero reason to think that this piece of advice is out dated: in fact there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is an entirely logical approach for prosecutors to take. So if you really want to defend a system where legal authorities intentionally look for the dumbest (and, one has to think, probably the most racist) jurors possible so as to maintain high conviction rates then go ahead, but maybe put a bit more effort into your arguments than just repeatedly saying "no no your wrong".

Anyway your claims about why black jurors get selected, as well as your claims that any problems are confided to the 20th century deep south, seem pretty implausible in light of articles such as the following:

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.

The rest of your post is split between restating my own argument with a slightly different nuance, coming up with additional reasons that would clearly be covered by my statement that I wasn't providing an exhaustive list, and somehow being unable to read the original article that clearly states there is universal support for the peremptory strike system so its unlikely to change.

Oh and a really loving bizarre flip out rant about the adversarial system. No, prosecutors trying to win is exactly how the system is supposed to function.

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Yeah, actually, gamers in the house forever,

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.

The rest of your post is split between restating my own argument with a slightly different nuance, coming up with additional reasons that would clearly be covered by my statement that I wasn't providing an exhaustive list, and somehow being unable to read the original article that clearly states there is universal support for the peremptory strike system so its unlikely to change.

Oh and a really loving bizarre flip out rant about the adversarial system. No, prosecutors trying to win is exactly how the system is supposed to function.

Do you think it is possible that any prosecutor anywhere, :siren: aside from a single case in 1987 :siren:, has used peremptory strikes, intentionally or not, for racist reasons?

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

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.

Unless you're completely autistic then I think you must be aware of how your comments in this thread come off as massively dismissive and eager to blame any problems on the past, or on very selective geographic parts of the country, or on a few bad apples.

quote:

The rest of your post is split between restating my own argument with a slightly different nuance, coming up with additional reasons that would clearly be covered by my statement that I wasn't providing an exhaustive list, and somehow being unable to read the original article that clearly states there is universal support for the peremptory strike system so its unlikely to change.

"Most trial lawyers" is in no way synonymous with "universal support".

quote:

Oh and a really loving bizarre flip out rant about the adversarial system. No, prosecutors trying to win is exactly how the system is supposed to function.

Yes, it is truly bizarre to think that a system that explicitly selects for the dumbest and least educated jurors and which displays a clear, persistent and systematically racist bias is bad. :rolleyes:

Don't worry, nobody is suggesting that the entire adversarial court system should be scrapped altogether but it's remarkable how quick you are to defend a set of institutional arrangements with such manifestly dysfunctional, racist system. The way in which most American jurisdictions deal with criminal issues is broken and it's pretty hard to read your constant nit picking and misleading presentations of what the original article says as anything other than an attempt to imply that the system is basically working as intended with only minor flaws.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

Jarmak posted:

You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down?

You obviously know this isn't how racism works, so what's the point of even saying it. Someone doesn't have to be cackling and twirling a mustache about successfully keeping the black man down another day to be a racist or to discriminate or to let racial prejudice affect how they do their job, you know that right?

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

VitalSigns posted:

You obviously know this isn't how racism works, so what's the point of even saying it. Someone doesn't have to be cackling and twirling a mustache about successfully keeping the black man down another day to be a racist or to discriminate or to let racial prejudice affect how they do their job, you know that right?

Yes I do, which is why I'm saying it, because it being a deeper systemic issue is what I keep saying and I was trying to mock the person who keeps trying to rebut that.


But this thread has turned into people trying very very hard to twist what I'm saying into "there's not racism" so they have a villain to yell at instead of engaging what I'm actually saying, which is that this is a symptom of a deeper systemic racial disparity.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN
The first five or six posts you made in this thread were dismissive statements like "this case is from 1987", along with implications that the problem was geographically confined to the South, etc. There's no need to re-litigate those arguments but you should be able to understand why people think you're downplaying the issue.

Practically speaking, if you think the current system for striking jurors is simply irreplaceable, then what practical alternatives are there to deal with the disproportionate and racially motivated exclusion of black jurors?

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

The fundamental problem with addressing racism in society is that, while it's entirely possible to prove that widespread racism exists, it's often (if not usually) impossible to prove it on an individual basis. So you end up with a situation where, even if you know that, statistically, a person's actions were likely motivated by racism, you can't really prove it or justify them being legally punished. The key assumption of posters like Jarmak is that loosening the burden of proof in cases suspected to involve racism (and the more frequent wrongful convictions of racism/discrimination-related crimes that would result) is more harmful than the results of the racism itself. While I think it's possible that this may be true and is definitely an argument worth considering, I believe it is definitely wrong to just assume that it must be the case. People like this seem to ignore the fact that the status quo is causing substantial harm and use "but this solution would also cause harm" as an argument against it, when that's completely irrelevant if the harm caused by the solution would be less than the harm caused by the status quo.

My personal feeling is that it is doubtful the harm caused by loosening the burden of proof in potential instances of racism/discrimination is greater than the harm of the racism/discrimination itself. I also have a really difficult time thinking of a situation where someone is accused of racism/discrimination and is not actually guilty of it to some degree, so I doubt that wrongful convictions would be that common even if you did loosen the burden to some extent.

Helsing posted:

Don't worry, nobody is suggesting that the entire adversarial court system should be scrapped altogether but it's remarkable how quick you are to defend a set of institutional arrangements with such manifestly dysfunctional, racist system. The way in which most American jurisdictions deal with criminal issues is broken and it's pretty hard to read your constant nit picking and misleading presentations of what the original article says as anything other than an attempt to imply that the system is basically working as intended with only minor flaws.

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.

Woozy
Jan 3, 2006
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.

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Yeah, actually, gamers in the house forever,

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).

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Jarmak posted:

You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down?

Why not? Plenty of business owners have intentionally hurt their business by refusing to serve black customers, at least back when it was legal to do so. Besides, considering the likelihood of the accused being a minority, ensuring a jury as close to all-white as possible is unlikely to hurt the prosecution.

Besides, there are real, known examples backing up my fact pattern. You've offered nothing but conjecture for yours.

Jarmak posted:

Well yes, that's the position I'm arguing? The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I'm going into the why black jurors from low income areas are less likely to convict.

Main Paineframe is trying to rebut this for some reason.

A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective.

It might be true that black jurors tend to be more likely, statistically, to fall into groups that prosecutors are unlikely to want in a jury. But if a prosecutor goes ahead and strikes black people based entirely on that statistical likelihood, when there was in fact an option to determine it individually, then it's absolutely racist.

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?

Aesop Poprock
Oct 21, 2008


Grimey Drawer
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

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

Dead Reckoning posted:

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.

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.

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.

PERPETUAL IDIOT
Sep 12, 2003

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

Yeah, it's easy. All you have to do is actually say why you think Jarmak is right, then defend it when people say why they think you're wrong.

tezcat
Jan 1, 2005

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
My vote is to Pain Mainframe for being the most sensible because Jarmak's position is that being able to be racist as gently caress isn't a bug but a feature:

Jarmak posted:

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.

Of course Mainframe is on point for all of slowbus Race Realist:

Main Paineframe posted:

A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective.

It might be true that black jurors tend to be more likely, statistically, to fall into groups that prosecutors are unlikely to want in a jury. But if a prosecutor goes ahead and strikes black people based entirely on that statistical likelihood, when there was in fact an option to determine it individually, then it's absolutely racist.
Long story short Jarmak thinks loving with the laws about this is bad for "his side" because he wants to be able to to say "i didn't hire this guy because statistically hes too black" and not get in trouble for it. I'm sure he'd scream bloody blue murder if he was barred from a job because statistically white men are more likely to be pedophiles or rapist than people of color and I ask him "do you like kids or women?" If he says yes (opps he likes them to much, get rid of him), no (he's a kid & woman hater who wants to harm them, get rid of him).

The real answer is that barring Jarmak from the job over that extra criteria that I don't apply to other races would be a lovely thing to do. But Jarmak would think that I should find out why white people are rape kiddy fiddlers before I stop applying my obtuse extra metric for white people.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012

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

So the issue of juror racial discrimination is only a problem when applied to the South, where the majority of black americans live? great thanks 4 the valuable insight

ZenVulgarity
Oct 9, 2012

I made the hat by transforming my zen

Why would you ever have a black defendant be tried correctly

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe

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

Look at or talk about in any way="cherry pick"

archangelwar
Oct 28, 2004

Teaching Moments

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.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

Helsing posted:

The first five or six posts you made in this thread were dismissive statements like "this case is from 1987", along with implications that the problem was geographically confined to the South, etc. There's no need to re-litigate those arguments but you should be able to understand why people think you're downplaying the issue.

Practically speaking, if you think the current system for striking jurors is simply irreplaceable, then what practical alternatives are there to deal with the disproportionate and racially motivated exclusion of black jurors?

I was being dismissive of the over the top hyperbole of the OP and the people who thought the really horrible examples of this like the training video and the jurors marked with "B"s were contemporary events.

Main Paineframe posted:

A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective.

It might be true that black jurors tend to be more likely, statistically, to fall into groups that prosecutors are unlikely to want in a jury. But if a prosecutor goes ahead and strikes black people based entirely on that statistical likelihood, when there was in fact an option to determine it individually, then it's absolutely racist.

This is how jury selection is done for everyone though, much of it is gut decisions based on intuition and demographics, by both the defense and the prosecutor, there simply isn't a lot of information to make the decisions on and extremely biased people will absolutely either lie or honestly believe they're not biased during questioning. The process isn't so much about finding the most "capable" pool so much as its about trying to make sure a "bad" juror doesn't get through who will poison the entire process. We're arguing past each other right now because I'm talking about racist in motivation and intent, and you're talking about racist in effect. This is part of the reason there's no good way to fix this issue without causing more harm then good, its far too nebulous.




Main Paineframe posted:

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.

You're conflating motivation with intent

tezcat posted:

Long story short Jarmak thinks loving with the laws about this is bad for "his side" because he wants to be able to to say "i didn't hire this guy because statistically hes too black" and not get in trouble for it. I'm sure he'd scream bloody blue murder if he was barred from a job because statistically white men are more likely to be pedophiles or rapist than people of color and I ask him "do you like kids or women?" If he says yes (opps he likes them to much, get rid of him), no (he's a kid & woman hater who wants to harm them, get rid of him).

The real answer is that barring Jarmak from the job over that extra criteria that I don't apply to other races would be a lovely thing to do. But Jarmak would think that I should find out why white people are rape kiddy fiddlers before I stop applying my obtuse extra metric for white people.

What the gently caress does this have to do with employment?

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.

tezcat
Jan 1, 2005

Jarmak posted:

What the gently caress does this have to do with employment?
Being a discriminatory gently caress stain would not fly in fields such as employment and others. Not sure why you are for keeping it the same criminal justice. Remember striking jury members based on their race due to "statistical likelyhood" is still striking them off based on their race. As you were quoted before you are more interested in finding the nebulous cause rather than fixing the issue which just means not fixing the issue at all because you and people like you benifit from it the most. I mean I get why a white guy wants to keep the status quo but it makes your position and statements in the thread no less pathetic.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005

archangelwar posted:

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.

What steps do you think can/should be taken?

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

tezcat posted:

I mean I get why a white guy wants to keep the status quo but it makes your position and statements in the thread no less pathetic.

I'm a rural lily-white guy and I have no goddamn idea why people want to keep the status quo. I've got friends and family that suffer from this bullshit, but even if I didn't, fixing it would still be the right thing to do.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN

Jarmak posted:

I was being dismissive of the over the top hyperbole of the OP and the people who thought the really horrible examples of this like the training video and the jurors marked with "B"s were contemporary events.

Helsing posted:


Practically speaking, if you think the current system for striking jurors is simply irreplaceable, then what practical alternatives are there to deal with the disproportionate and racially motivated exclusion of black jurors?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005


I already said I didn't think one exists

edit: unless you're asking me how I plan on fixing the holistic social and economic racial disparity in the US, which is way outside the scope of this thread.

  • Locked thread