Mandy Thompson posted:

For me this video right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9SJPa_dF8



Everything wrong with American justice in less than a minute. Justice and impartiality are lies. It's not unfair by mistake, It's unfair by design. It was always about control and never about justice. Innocent people get ducked in because people like this mother fucker want more people in to scare everyone into total capitulation.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/02/452898470/supreme-court-takes-on-racial-discrimination-in-jury-selection


The link has a picture of the prosecutors notes where the highlighted all the black jurors with a "B".

Stereotype posted:

And yet nothing has changed since then to prevent the exact same thing from happening.

eSports Chaebol posted:

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.

OwlFancier posted:

The case is from 1987 but the article refers to some kind of current deliberation, I'm not sure what exactly it's suggesting is happening though.

Unless it's only just reached the supreme court.

-Troika- posted:

What would happen if it simply became impossible to strike jurors unless they had a direct conflict of interest with the case?

Helsing posted:

Mandy Thompson posted:

Everything wrong with American justice in less than a minute. Justice and impartiality are lies. It's not unfair by mistake, It's unfair by design. It was always about control and never about justice. Innocent people get ducked in because people like this mother fucker want more people in to scare everyone into total capitulation.

Helsing posted:

It's good to know that no matter what facts you're presented with your analysis stays the exact same: it's not a problem, and if it is a problem we can't do anything about it. I am sure you are debating this in good faith though.

Lid posted:

What is the source?

Obdicut posted:

Racist motivation doesn't matter. It has a racist effect.

Jarmak posted:

for obvious reasons in this case is completely inappropriate

captainblastum posted:

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say Jarmak, can you clarify the point that you want to make about this?

Main Paineframe posted:

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.

eSports Chaebol posted:

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.

Main Paineframe posted:

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?

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.

Helsing posted:

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.

Useful Distraction posted:

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

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.

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:

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Helsing posted:

Helsing posted:

esquilax posted:

Overturn a conviction when evidence comes to light that the prosecutors culled the jury pool based on racially discriminatory intent

archangelwar posted:

^^^^^^^^^^^
&


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

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!

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.