3 ms·

If you're curious about this topic, I'd recommend you look up interviews with the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial. Many were black and by their own admission mad

If you're curious about this topic, I'd recommend you look up interviews with the jurors in the OJ Simpson trial. Many were black and by their own admission made their decision about OJ's guilt-based entirely on a feeling of racial justice. They considered it “payback.” https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?feature=shared https://youtu.be/BUJCLdmNzAA?feature=shared

dmonitor 1y ago
OJ Simpson is was such a famous case that I'd be inclined to treat it as an outlier in many ways, not the norm.
- taeric 1y ago
  Agreed. Outliers are a thing. As is cherry-picking data to try and prove a point. Sucks, as this level of cherry-picking heavily biases me against the premise. If someone has a good data set, they don't need to drive anecdotes from the outliers. And if they are, is it an attempt to hide that the overall data paints a different picture?
- thephyber 1y ago
  But I would argue that jury mentality is universal. Any juror who knows about the concept of jury nullification is more likely to use it when the defendant reminds them of themselves or when the prosecution has so vastly disproportionate resources over the defendant that the trial can’t possibly be fair.
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    >I would argue that jury mentality is universal Then argue it, because that's a pretty large thing to say unsupported
hiimkeks 1y ago
I don't think one of the most high-profile and racially charged cases in history can serve as a reasonable benchmark for how the bulk of cases are handled. Edit: Not sure why I am being downvoted, I tried to say the same thing dmonitor said.
wat10000 1y ago
And the LAPD seems to have decided OJ was guilty based largely on a feeling of racial prejudice. The fact that he actually did it was coincidental. I've often seen that trial described as the LAPD framing a guilty man. The prosecution did a terrible job and I'm not at all convinced the acquittal wasn't the correct verdict, even if it's pretty clearly contrary to the facts of what happened. It seems safe to assume that the LAPD also did/does this to less famous people of color, in which case a higher rate of voting to acquit would not indicate bias by the jury.
- thephyber 1y ago
  I would argue OJ would have been arrested far earlier for DV (long before the murder) if the LAPD didn’t have such a hard-on for the celebrity.
- eszed 1y ago
  > not at all convinced the acquittal wasn't the correct verdict I agree with you. I followed it closely at the time, and thought acquittal was the correct verdict based (only) on what the jury saw. We court-watchers, of course, saw everything that the defense managed to exclude, and came to a different (and I do believe more accurate) conclusion, but the jury got it - from their (deliberately constructed by the defense) point of view - right. It was a formative episode in my civic understanding.

dmonitor 1y ago

OJ Simpson is was such a famous case that I'd be inclined to treat it as an outlier in many ways, not the norm.

taeric 1y ago
Agreed. Outliers are a thing. As is cherry-picking data to try and prove a point. Sucks, as this level of cherry-picking heavily biases me against the premise. If someone has a good data set, they don't need to drive anecdotes from the outliers. And if they are, is it an attempt to hide that the overall data paints a different picture?
thephyber 1y ago
But I would argue that jury mentality is universal. Any juror who knows about the concept of jury nullification is more likely to use it when the defendant reminds them of themselves or when the prosecution has so vastly disproportionate resources over the defendant that the trial can’t possibly be fair.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  >I would argue that jury mentality is universal Then argue it, because that's a pretty large thing to say unsupported

hiimkeks 1y ago

I don't think one of the most high-profile and racially charged cases in history can serve as a reasonable benchmark for how the bulk of cases are handled. Edit: Not sure why I am being downvoted, I tried to say the same thing dmonitor said.

wat10000 1y ago

And the LAPD seems to have decided OJ was guilty based largely on a feeling of racial prejudice. The fact that he actually did it was coincidental. I've often seen that trial described as the LAPD framing a guilty man. The prosecution did a terrible job and I'm not at all convinced the acquittal wasn't the correct verdict, even if it's pretty clearly contrary to the facts of what happened. It seems safe to assume that the LAPD also did/does this to less famous people of color, in which case a higher rate of voting to acquit would not indicate bias by the jury.

thephyber 1y ago
I would argue OJ would have been arrested far earlier for DV (long before the murder) if the LAPD didn’t have such a hard-on for the celebrity.
eszed 1y ago
> not at all convinced the acquittal wasn't the correct verdict I agree with you. I followed it closely at the time, and thought acquittal was the correct verdict based (only) on what the jury saw. We court-watchers, of course, saw everything that the defense managed to exclude, and came to a different (and I do believe more accurate) conclusion, but the jury got it - from their (deliberately constructed by the defense) point of view - right. It was a formative episode in my civic understanding.