5 ms·

If you select the right jury it doesn’t matter whether you have solid evidence anyway. For some cases you might want to remove black jurors, or maybe get rid of

If you select the right jury it doesn’t matter whether you have solid evidence anyway. For some cases you might want to remove black jurors, or maybe get rid of any women. If you get the right mix you get a conviction regardless of the facts of the case. Outcomes are determined by looks as much, perhaps more than actual evidence. And we know that and proceed just the same.

mnw21cam 8y ago
It boggles the mind that members of the jury can be selected by the prosecution or defence in this way (or at all, really). I understand the need to disqualify people if they have severe learning difficulties, have special knowledge that would disrupt the process, or if they are incapable of finding one of the possible verdicts, but otherwise the selection should be a random cross-section of society.
- Matticus_Rex 8y ago
  It's very likely that a particular random cross-section will be extremely biased in one direction or another.
- somebodythere 8y ago
  Why should a juror be excluded for possessing special knowledge? Wouldn't that be an advantage when it comes to finding facts?
  - pmoriarty 8y ago
    If a juror knows the defendant or the victim, or knows the prosecutor or defense attorney for that matter, that could bias them.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Because neither side really has an interest in you as a juror determining things yourself, they want jurors who can be accepting of their narrative, be they prosecution or defense.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > or if they are incapable of finding one of the possible verdicts I hope you are aware of "jury nullification" and FIJA: https://fija.org/ https://fija.org/ Now that you are aware - and assuming you are in the United States - you can tell the judge this during voir-dire and the selection process. You will be dismissed. There's also a good chance you'll never be called by the system again for possible jury selection. I did this once about 10 years ago where selection went to voir-dire; I let the court know I was in support of FIJA. I was dismissed, and I haven't been called back since (while my wife has been hit about 4-5 times since then; but it always has ended up either not going to voir-dire, or her group not being called in to come down to the court). Yet another example of the failure of our legal and justice systems; by not fully informing the jury that "yes, Virginia, you can decide to not convict if you don't believe the law is just", they seek to strip away one of the many rights we have a jury members under the Constitution.
wonderwonder 8y ago
I've always felt that the right to jury selection should be taken away from the prosecution and still granted to the defense. Jury selection is randomized (allowing for obvious things like the removal of friends / family, etc.) and then the defense has the ability to exclude X number of people. If the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the makeup of the jury should not matter. In my opinion this would lead to a lot less false convictions.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  That's a really fascinating idea. I love the concept, I'm sure there are downsides/externalities but overall I'd love someone to try it to learn more.

mnw21cam 8y ago

It boggles the mind that members of the jury can be selected by the prosecution or defence in this way (or at all, really). I understand the need to disqualify people if they have severe learning difficulties, have special knowledge that would disrupt the process, or if they are incapable of finding one of the possible verdicts, but otherwise the selection should be a random cross-section of society.

Matticus_Rex 8y ago
It's very likely that a particular random cross-section will be extremely biased in one direction or another.
somebodythere 8y ago
Why should a juror be excluded for possessing special knowledge? Wouldn't that be an advantage when it comes to finding facts?
- pmoriarty 8y ago
  If a juror knows the defendant or the victim, or knows the prosecutor or defense attorney for that matter, that could bias them.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Because neither side really has an interest in you as a juror determining things yourself, they want jurors who can be accepting of their narrative, be they prosecution or defense.
cr0sh 8y ago
> or if they are incapable of finding one of the possible verdicts I hope you are aware of "jury nullification" and FIJA: https://fija.org/ https://fija.org/ Now that you are aware - and assuming you are in the United States - you can tell the judge this during voir-dire and the selection process. You will be dismissed. There's also a good chance you'll never be called by the system again for possible jury selection. I did this once about 10 years ago where selection went to voir-dire; I let the court know I was in support of FIJA. I was dismissed, and I haven't been called back since (while my wife has been hit about 4-5 times since then; but it always has ended up either not going to voir-dire, or her group not being called in to come down to the court). Yet another example of the failure of our legal and justice systems; by not fully informing the jury that "yes, Virginia, you can decide to not convict if you don't believe the law is just", they seek to strip away one of the many rights we have a jury members under the Constitution.

wonderwonder 8y ago

I've always felt that the right to jury selection should be taken away from the prosecution and still granted to the defense. Jury selection is randomized (allowing for obvious things like the removal of friends / family, etc.) and then the defense has the ability to exclude X number of people. If the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the makeup of the jury should not matter. In my opinion this would lead to a lot less false convictions.

Someone1234 8y ago
That's a really fascinating idea. I love the concept, I'm sure there are downsides/externalities but overall I'd love someone to try it to learn more.