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.

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)

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 17:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:31

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.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2015 19:34

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