|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:It seems like one of two things are going on 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Stronger scrutiny over stated jury elimination reasoning The most important question, though, is "how?". There's already a pretty decent scrutiny system in place. The problem is that the people actually providing that scrutiny are giving blatant racism a pass. The legal system is essentially scrutinizing itself, and then giving itself a pass, saying it can't see any racism in its own workings. How do we eliminate racism from a system that, even when working properly and without system-inherent biases, relies on twelve essentially random people (and a judge) to make decisions? The legal system is highly dependent on people and has minimal external oversight; if a judge decides they're going to be an rear end in a top hat, there's not really much that can be done about it. There's also the camaraderie between fellow legal workers - the prosecutor and defense lawyer may be opponents in the courtroom, but they're co-workers doing their job who work together on a regular basis and might go out to the same coffee shop after work, and the judge has a similar connection to both of them. The defense alleging racism is just doing their job whatever it takes, no hard feelings there, the prosecutor isn't going to be super pissed at the end of the day that the defense suggested he's a nasty person. But when the judge has to make that call, it's different. Is he really ready to accuse the prosecutor, a co-worker who he's probably going to continue to see in the courtroom quite a bit in the future, of being racist? There's a professional relationship there he's not inclined to ruin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
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. 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? I'm not trying to be that rear end in a top hat who goes "oh, you say there's a problem? then you'd better submit a detailed plan on exactly how it should be solved", but as long as Jarmak and Dead Reckoning are getting called out for saying it's an unsolvable problem, I'd like to see the people calling them out offer up something concrete of their own rather than just slinging barbs, because I think a lot of people are missing one very important point: Dead Reckoning posted:Let me get this straight, so you can't accuse me of misrepresenting your position: trapped mouse posted:The whole point behind all this is that Batson doesn't really matter, prosecutors can make up any poo poo to take out black jurors. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Yes. The question of whether there is political will to do it is independent of "there is nothing that can be done." 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! Elected judges. The public is terrible at providing oversight of the judicial branch, and ideally the judicial branch should not be accountable to the general public. Otherwise they might start letting popular demand influence their verdicts, instead of enforcing the law no matter how much h outrage the media gins up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
archangelwar posted: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. If there was political will, we wouldn't need to improve the system. The Batson challenge is fairly solid in theory, the problem is that the people who oversee it are refusing to provide oversight. Without willingness to provide solid oversight, the only way to eliminate racism from peremptory strike usage is to eliminate peremptory strikes altogether.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 03:23
|
|