6 ms·

> But as soon as she walked into the jury room, she realized she was in the minority. It was easy for her to write “not guilty” on a piece of paper but much har

> But as soon as she walked into the jury room, she realized she was in the minority. It was easy for her to write “not guilty” on a piece of paper but much harder to discuss the case confidently as the two white men aggressively advocated for guilt. Each to their own, but she was under no obligation to vote guilty. I'm not sure why the article purports that "two white men" (I'm not white) were the "problem" here, and not that the problem was her inability to stand by her convictions. I often disagree with what I consider dramatised recounts of history, as if it's always some good vs bad, David vs Goliath tale. This was the 1970's in America, if she knew something that others didn't she should have had held her ground. As most people would have given that you are holding someones life in your hands. You can blame external factors all you want, but it is your still your reckoning. And great, that this person eventually helped them rectify this injustice. But what a silly way to tell the story.

puchatek 3y ago
Ultimately it was her responsibility, yes. But I've seen loud, big and aggressive people get their say too many times to not think that they are part of the problem. At least ethically.
silisili 3y ago
Was wondering the same. This wasn't like the Jim Crow south or something similar, El Paso has been Hispanic majority for a long time. 69% in 1990, according to Wikipedia. Maybe they existed as outlined, but the focus on it felt like a way of alleviating her(and others) of their wrongdoing.
- skissane 3y ago
  It is a psychological thing. Some people find it really hard to assert themselves when faced with dominant personalities. Differences in culture, gender, etc, can be a factor. The article mentions that at the time her English skills were still developing, and that may have also played a role. That's not to say any of this entirely excuses what she did, but it helps put it in perspective. It was also the fault of other members of the jury, who were more concerned with obtaining superficial agreement than convinced agreement.
- attentionspan 3y ago
  I've been to "the south" as recently as 2018 and the way some white guests in a taco restaurant conducted themselves towards the hispanic waiters was appalling. The entitlement.. I'm not at all surprised by this recount and wouldn't even be surprised if this happened today.
dotnet00 3y ago
It really is a very weirdly framed article, it makes it out as if everyone else was wrong and forceful and she was simply being brave and good by speaking up nearly 30 years later, even though while it was wrong of the cops to not investigate properly, as a juror she had the duty to speak up. It's nice she eventually did, but it doesn't make her an admirable person for only doing it after the victim lost a third of his life.
- Nursie 3y ago
  I read the article and got very angry at her. She knew it didn't stack up, but gave in and then did nothing about it for three decades. Yeah I should be more angry at the police and prosecutors, but I think 30 years of a man's life is more than enough blame to go around.
  - armada651 3y ago
    But why are you most angry at the juror who stuck with her conviction the longest? There were 11 other jurors who convicted the man without a second thought.
    - Nursie 3y ago
      Don’t get me wrong, they weren’t great either. Some of them probably racist bullies, others just wanted to convict the guy who the cops said did the really bad things because “Police and state guy say you did it” is enough for some people. But “I sat with the knowledge I had given the wrong verdict while a man rotted in jail for 30 years” doesn’t come across as the heroic or even mildly positive story the journalist seemed to be going for in the article either. It’s good she did something about it eventually but it’s good in a “So I finally stopped punching my dog in the face” kinda way. Poor fucking guy had his life stolen and she’s part of the reason why. Is she worse than the other actors in this shameful play? No of course not. But I’m not sure there are any heroes here.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
steeve 3y ago
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/
- almatabata 3y ago
  That movie is really a timeless gem. It shows how a case that looked so clear in the beginning actually falls apart after careful examination.
Timshel 3y ago
> if she knew something that others didn't she should have had held her ground. But she didn't ... She just viewed the same facts differently. > As most people would have given that you are holding someones life in your hands. Lol, to say this in response to an article where multiple juror were swayed ...
true_religion 3y ago
> I'm not sure why the article purports that "two white men" (I'm not white) were the "problem" here, and not that the problem was her inability to stand by her convictions. She didn’t stand by her convictions because she had a history of being told to defer to white men. There was a whole section about her background to go into why she felt this way. The story is more about the woman, her situation and her desire for justice after decades so I can see why they left her reasoning in. Otherwise we would be clueless as to why she decided to vote guilty after feeling the guy wasn’t guilty then immediately change her mind again once the trial was over.

puchatek 3y ago

Ultimately it was her responsibility, yes. But I've seen loud, big and aggressive people get their say too many times to not think that they are part of the problem. At least ethically.

silisili 3y ago

Was wondering the same. This wasn't like the Jim Crow south or something similar, El Paso has been Hispanic majority for a long time. 69% in 1990, according to Wikipedia. Maybe they existed as outlined, but the focus on it felt like a way of alleviating her(and others) of their wrongdoing.

skissane 3y ago
It is a psychological thing. Some people find it really hard to assert themselves when faced with dominant personalities. Differences in culture, gender, etc, can be a factor. The article mentions that at the time her English skills were still developing, and that may have also played a role. That's not to say any of this entirely excuses what she did, but it helps put it in perspective. It was also the fault of other members of the jury, who were more concerned with obtaining superficial agreement than convinced agreement.
attentionspan 3y ago
I've been to "the south" as recently as 2018 and the way some white guests in a taco restaurant conducted themselves towards the hispanic waiters was appalling. The entitlement.. I'm not at all surprised by this recount and wouldn't even be surprised if this happened today.

dotnet00 3y ago

It really is a very weirdly framed article, it makes it out as if everyone else was wrong and forceful and she was simply being brave and good by speaking up nearly 30 years later, even though while it was wrong of the cops to not investigate properly, as a juror she had the duty to speak up. It's nice she eventually did, but it doesn't make her an admirable person for only doing it after the victim lost a third of his life.

Nursie 3y ago
I read the article and got very angry at her. She knew it didn't stack up, but gave in and then did nothing about it for three decades. Yeah I should be more angry at the police and prosecutors, but I think 30 years of a man's life is more than enough blame to go around.
- armada651 3y ago
  But why are you most angry at the juror who stuck with her conviction the longest? There were 11 other jurors who convicted the man without a second thought.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    Don’t get me wrong, they weren’t great either. Some of them probably racist bullies, others just wanted to convict the guy who the cops said did the really bad things because “Police and state guy say you did it” is enough for some people. But “I sat with the knowledge I had given the wrong verdict while a man rotted in jail for 30 years” doesn’t come across as the heroic or even mildly positive story the journalist seemed to be going for in the article either. It’s good she did something about it eventually but it’s good in a “So I finally stopped punching my dog in the face” kinda way. Poor fucking guy had his life stolen and she’s part of the reason why. Is she worse than the other actors in this shameful play? No of course not. But I’m not sure there are any heroes here.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

steeve 3y ago

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

almatabata 3y ago
That movie is really a timeless gem. It shows how a case that looked so clear in the beginning actually falls apart after careful examination.

Timshel 3y ago

> if she knew something that others didn't she should have had held her ground. But she didn't ... She just viewed the same facts differently. > As most people would have given that you are holding someones life in your hands. Lol, to say this in response to an article where multiple juror were swayed ...

true_religion 3y ago

> I'm not sure why the article purports that "two white men" (I'm not white) were the "problem" here, and not that the problem was her inability to stand by her convictions. She didn’t stand by her convictions because she had a history of being told to defer to white men. There was a whole section about her background to go into why she felt this way. The story is more about the woman, her situation and her desire for justice after decades so I can see why they left her reasoning in. Otherwise we would be clueless as to why she decided to vote guilty after feeling the guy wasn’t guilty then immediately change her mind again once the trial was over.