Should Minority Presence Be Required on Juries

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Washington, DC

Let's face it, minorities cannot realistically hope for a consistently fair verdict with a jury panel that's, more often times than not, entirely comprised of European Americans. Who could I write to make an argument that diversity should be taken into account when jury members are being selected and that having a minimum number of minorities is mandatory before jury selection requirements are satisfied? Who would I write in order to make this selection?

In my county, there are at least four courthouses just at the District level and I forget how many at the Superior level. The demographic makeup of the county is 85.5% Caucasian. Jury duty by state law is one day/one trial and you cannot be required to serve more than once in a three year period.

Even if we assume that every single person in the county is eligible to sit on a jury (and some will be over age, under age, not eligible for other reasons) that's going to spread the 14.5 percent of jurors who are not Caucasian mighty thin.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

In my county, there are at least four courthouses just at the District level and I forget how many at the Superior level. The demographic makeup of the county is 85.5% Caucasian. Jury duty by state law is one day/one trial and you cannot be required to serve more than once in a three year period.

Even if we assume that every single person in the county is eligible to sit on a jury (and some will be over age, under age, not eligible for other reasons) that's going to spread the 14.5 percent of jurors who are not Caucasian mighty thin.

---

Well, they're going to have to figure something out. Because statistically minorities are sentenced more harshly and convicted more frequently when there's an all European American jury panel. The United State's justice system is corrupt and unfair towards minorities.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Well, they're going to have to figure something out. Because statistically minorities are sentenced more harshly and convicted more frequently when there's an all European American jury panel. The United State's justice system is corrupt and unfair towards minorities.

---

And your proposed solution is ... ?

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

And your proposed solution is ... ?

---

Affirmative action during jury selection.... Even if that means bringing minorities in from other counties.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Affirmative action during jury selection.... Even if that means bringing minorities in from other counties.

---

The part of bringing in jurors from outside the area of jurisdiction where the crime was committed would run into potential constitutional problems because the 6th Amendment states that defendants shall have a trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” So you’d probably need a Constitutional amendment to make that work.

There is now pending in the Supreme Court a case dealing with racial bias in the selection of jurors, Foster v. Chapman, a decision on which may be released by this summer. That case, when decided, will provide additional guideance on the Constitutional requirments for jury selection as it relates to the race of potential jury members. It will be interesting to see that turns out given the death of Justice Scalia. The Supreme Court has previously said, however, that race should not be a factor in choosing jury members, and I believe that your idea of affirmative action for juries would run afoul of that principle. As a result, the idea may violate the Constitution and, if so, again you’d have to get the Constitution amended to implement it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

[FONT=Garamond][SIZE=3]The part of bringing in jurors from outside the area of jurisdiction where the crime was committed would run into potential constitutional problems because the 6th Amendment states that defendants shall have a trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” So you’d probably need a Constitutional amendment to make that work.

---

Yes, same State different county if you need more minorities on the jury panel.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

There is now pending in the Supreme Court a case dealing with racial bias in the selection of jurors, Foster v. Chapman, a decision on which may be released by this summer. That case, when decided, will provide additional guideance on the Constitutional requirments for jury selection as it relates to the race of potential jury members. It will be interesting to see that turns out given the death of Justice Scalia. The Supreme Court has previously said, however, that race should not be a factor in choosing jury members, and I believe that your idea of affirmative action for juries would run afoul of that principle. As a result, the idea may violate the Constitution and, if so, again you’d have to get the Constitution amended to implement it.

---

It's a necessary evil as long as we live in a country with a majority West European descended population that may allow their racial bias to impede their ability to render a fair verdict.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Yes, same State different county if you need more minorities on the jury panel.

---

The Constitution says state and district. I’ve not checked to see if the Supreme Court has applied that in the state context to require a jury pool from the same jurisdiction that the court has, but I’d not be surprised if it did.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

It's a necessary evil as long as we live in a country with a majority West European descended population that may allow their racial bias to impede their ability to render a fair verdict.

---

So you assume that all white folks are biased against minorities and all minorites are unbiased? I disagree with that assumption and would not support your idea as a result.

I do believe someone is projecting ...

So then, would the opposite apply? No minorities if the defendant is Caucasian? Shall we break it down by ethnicity? Or should the defendant get to choose? Should it be the race he or she "identifies with"? What if the defendant won't state a race (you know, it isn't always obvious)? Keep granting trials until he or she is happy with the verdict? Forced genetic testing?

I stopped taking you seriously after "European Americans".

What if the defendant is of mixed race? The questions can go on.

The demographic makeup of the US is slowly changing. In another 50 to 100 years, this question will be moot.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Washington, DC

Let's face it, minorities cannot realistically hope for a consistently fair verdict with a jury panel that's, more often times than not, entirely comprised of European Americans. Who could I write to make an argument that diversity should be taken into account when jury members are being selected and that having a minimum number of minorities is mandatory before jury selection requirements are satisfied? Who would I write in order to make this selection?

---

What about if the defendant is female? Shall there only be female jurors? Or only male jurors for male defendants?

Do you see where your idea gets murky and is impossible to implement? This would not be a "impartial" jury just because there would be someone who looks like the defendant in the pool.

As stated, do you really think all those who are not "Caucasian" looking would be impartial to someone who looks like them? You do realize this is why both sides screen the jurors right?

I know what you are implying though. All "white" people are racist and all "non-white" people are unbiased and not racist toward people who look like them.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The Constitution says state and district. I’ve not checked to see if the Supreme Court has applied that in the state context to require a jury pool from the same jurisdiction that the court has, but I’d not be surprised if it did.



So you assume that all white folks are biased against minorities and all minorites are unbiased? I disagree with that assumption and would not support your idea as a result.

---

Given the LONG history and multiple instances of European Americans misusing their authority to the detriment of minorities in this country, is it really that far of a stretch to think your people's racial bias may effect how they pass a verdict? Let's speak as adults and not choose to ignore facts just because they put European Americans in a negative light....

Quote:

---

Quoting Cocoabean

---

So then, would the opposite apply? No minorities if the defendant is Caucasian? Shall we break it down by ethnicity? Or should the defendant get to choose? Should it be the race he or she "identifies with"? What if the defendant won't state a race (you know, it isn't always obvious)? Keep granting trials until he or she is happy with the verdict? Forced genetic testing?

---

The capacity that European Americans have for selective hearing (or reading) never ceases to amaze me.... Who said anything about there being no European Americans at all if the defendant is African American? Perhaps you should re-read my original question.

Quote:

---

Quoting Pringle

---

I stopped taking you seriously after "European Americans".

---

.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Americans <<< Please note that according to ACS Demographic and Housing, as of 2014 European Americans comprised 73.4% of the American population, so ignore it if you wish.....

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

What if the defendant is of mixed race? The questions can go on.

The demographic makeup of the US is slowly changing. In another 50 to 100 years, this question will be moot.

---

My question was very simple.... Should affirmative action apply to jury panels as well, especially in cases where the defendant is a minority (any minority). Again, given the history in this country of European Americans going out of their way to oppress others, and given the fact that statistically minority defendants are sentenced more harshly by an all Caucasian jury panel than European American defendants, I think that it's prudent to at least consider diversifying jury panels.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

The capacity that European Americans have for selective hearing (or reading) never ceases to amaze me....

---

Thanks for outing yourself as a racist troll.

Have a nice day.

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

Thanks for outing yourself as a racist troll.

Have a nice day.

---

Yep, you have a nice day also.

Racists who complain about this country being racist.

Trump supporters are the easiest ones to point out and say "yup, this person is someone I don't want anywhere near me".

You have fun with your ignorant racist rants :)

This thread gave me life this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Racist Troll for brightening my day!

My European (though non-American) self salutes you! Not.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Given the LONG history and multiple instances of European Americans misusing their authority to the detriment of minorities in this country, is it really that far of a stretch to think your people's racial bias may effect how they pass a verdict? Let's speak as adults and not choose to ignore facts just because they put European Americans in a negative light....

---

Let’s indeed talk like adults. The fact is that not all White people are racist bigots, though some surely are. The fact is that some minority people are racist bigots, though of course not all of them. Most jurors try hard to put aside their biases and make a just decision in the case. You are assuming that because some white people might be biased that all of them are. And that’s a faulty premise, and one that I might add also reflects a certain racial bias against whites.

Both sides in the jury selection process may challenge a juror for racial bias and have that juror removed. It is up to the attorneys involved to help ferret that out. It’s not perfect, of course, but it at least gets to the right principle: booting people from the jury pool who have demonstrated they cannot be fair rather than putting people on the jury just because of the color of their skin. Dr. King himself talked of treating people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Jurors ought to be treated the same way instead of simply assuming something about them based on the color of their skin.

In my view the biggest problem with racial make up of juries is with the potential abuse of the peremptory challenge, which allows each side to bump a prospective juror from the panel without having to state a reason. Studies show that in some areas prosecutors tend to bump minority jurors more often. That problem is exactly what the case now pending in the Supreme Court deals with. In my view for criminal cases courts ought to consider eliminating the peremptory challenges and instead only allow challenges for cause, and ensure that the jury pool is drawn from as wide a part of the population in that jurisdiction as possible. That way the jury pool will be representative of the community and race won’t play a factor in the selection of the jurors. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says in this case.

As to your concern that minority defendants draw harsher sentences than white defendants, there are various reasons for that, each of which requires a different kind of fix. But understand that most sentencing is done by the judge, not the jury. So if your concern is setencing problems, your jury idea would not fix that.

Please quote one thing that I've said that is racist.

@Taxing Matters - The minute anyone talks about taking away 'Caucasian' privilege someone starts complaining about racism against European Americans. It's not racist to want equality and proportionate representation of minorities among jurors.

Read this.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Please quote one thing that I've said that is racist.

@Taxing Matters - The minute anyone talks about taking away 'Caucasian' privilege someone starts complaining about racism against European Americans. It's not racist to want equality and proportionate representation of minorities among jurors.

Read this.

---

are you serious?

maybe this will help. It's the definition

a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

you have implied whites cannot judge a person fairly while blacks can. That would be an implication whites are inferior to blacks.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

are you serious?

maybe this will help. It's the definition

a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

you have implied whites cannot judge a person fairly while blacks can. That would be an implication whites are inferior to blacks.

---

I never said that all minorities are superior to all Europeans.

Based on evidence and the fact that minorities are convicted more often than Caucasians when an all European American jury is present, I'm not sure how my previous statements can be refuted.... In cases where the entire jury pool is European descended, African Americans are convicted at an 81% rate, while European Americans are only convicted at a 66% rate when facing an all Caucasian American jury.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/23/opinio...ism/index.html

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

The capacity that European Americans have for selective hearing (or reading) never ceases to amaze me.... Who said anything about there being no European Americans at all if the defendant is African American? Perhaps you should re-read my original question.

---

1. You have no idea who I am or what I look like. 2. Perhaps you should re-read my post...did I mention African Americans? Selective reading, indeed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Cocoabean

---

1. You have no idea who I am or what I look like. 2. Perhaps you should re-read my post...did I mention African Americans? Selective reading, indeed.

---

Did I ever say that you said anything about African Americans specifically? You said 'minority', and African Americans are one of many minorities in the U.S.A. in case you didn't know.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

I never said that all minorities are superior to all Europeans.

Based on evidence and the fact that minorities are convicted more often than Caucasians when an all European American jury is present, I'm not sure how my previous statements can be refuted.... In cases where the entire jury pool is European descended, African Americans are convicted at an 81% rate, while European Americans are only convicted at a 66% rate when facing an all Caucasian American jury.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/23/opinio...ism/index.html

---

go read Bill Cosby's statement to the NAACP a few years back. He said (paraphrasing) it's time for the blacks to stop blaming others.

One thing I noticed: you didn't say the black defendants were unjustly convicted.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

go read Bill Cosby's statement to the NAACP a few years back. He said (paraphrasing) it's time for the blacks to stop blaming others.

One thing I noticed: you didn't say the black defendants were unjustly convicted.

---

I'm not sure "blaming" is the correct word to use, I'm also not sure that it's not.....

To imply that European Americans never exacerbate (at least some of the time) the mistakes of African Americans and gloss over (at least some of the time) the mistakes of European Americans is ignorant. O'reilly isn't exactly the most unbiased example that you could have given ..... Whether the 66% to 81% comparison is an example of African Americans being wrongfully convicted or too many Caucasians being let off the hook who are guilty, there's a clear discrepancy, and it's asinine to think race has nothing to do with said discrepancy. There are minorities now who are in prison who wouldn't be if they were of European descent and conversely there are European Americans who are walking scot-free who otherwise wouldn't be if not for being Caucasian.

You can read Cosby's words here:

http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm


and yes, you are blaming the whites for the blacks problems. Whether there is a disparate. Treatment or not is secondary to the fact unless the convictions were not warranted, the defendant is the one to blame, ultimately, for where they are. Why argue about a higher conviction rate or harsher penalty when the actual solution is to not commit crimes to start with? Your argument is little different than the hippies of the '60's where "the man is keeping us down" or the current crop of marijuana proponents arguing "it's a healing herb" and as such should be freely available to anybody.


All all of those arguments have a common failure; when breaking the law, expect to be prosecuted. If you don't want to be faced with, your claim, of disparate treatment, do not act in a manner that puts you in a position that may subject you to it. It really is that simple; don't break the law and you don't have to worry about it.



im not going to debate your numbers though. Numbers are contrived to meet the needs of the publisher. I can produce numbers to support or refute any argument you wish to make.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You can read Cosby's words here:

http://www.eightcitiesmap.com/transcript_bc.htm


and yes, you are blaming the whites for the blacks problems. Whether there is a disparate. Treatment or not is secondary to the fact unless the convictions were not warranted, the defendant is the one to blame, ultimately, for where they are. Why argue about a higher conviction rate or harsher penalty when the actual solution is to not commit crimes to start with? Your argument is little different than the hippies of the '60's where "the man is keeping us down" or the current crop of marijuana proponents arguing "it's a healing herb" and as such should be freely available to anybody.


All all of those arguments have a common failure; when breaking the law, expect to be prosecuted. If you don't want to be faced with, your claim, of disparate treatment, do not act in a manner that puts you in a position that may subject you to it. It really is that simple; don't break the law and you don't have to worry about it.



im not going to debate your numbers though. Numbers are contrived to meet the needs of the publisher. I can produce numbers to support or refute any argument you wish to make.

---

Why don't you go read a grammar book then get back to me.

It's reasoning such as yours that leads me to believe that there's something in the brains of West Europeans that prohibits them from understanding basic morality arguments. Though I feel some sentences in America are too harsh for certain crimes, I am of the belief that if you do the crime, you should do the time.... This is true of European Americans as well. You guys shouldn't get a free ride for crimes that you commit as is often the case. Minorities don't deserve to be sentenced more harshly than Caucasians for committing the same crime, that is a problem and something that needs to be fixed.

Just because Caucasians are convicted at a lower rate, that doesn't mean they're innocent or that they commit less crimes.... It just means that they're not convicted as often for crimes that they do commit.

Your solution - a minority quota for juries - would over-complicate the judicial system.

Do you require only blacks be proportional to the population? Or, do we seek all demographics? Is the representation to hold true on all juries, or just 12 man juries? Where I live that might mean 7 whites, 4 Hispanics, and one SE Asian (no blacks). Do we therefore exclude blacks, Asian Indians, and Native Americans on juries in my county because it would create a situation where one of the other populations is UNDER-represented? What about women? Do we have to have 50% women on the jury? Do we account for age? Sexual preference? ... Where does that slippery slope end?

Should these percentages be based upon the most recent 10-year census? the updated census? Polls? Do we base it on legal residents, or do we also take into account illegal aliens? Do we guarantee representation on the jury itself, or just in the pool?

What if you do not get enough qualified applicants? Does the defendant then have to suffer a delay in his trial until a proper jury can be seated? What of the defendant's Constitutional right to a speedy trial?

There are too many hurdles to what you propose, not the least of which is the Constitution.

Legislation can fix disparities in sentencing if they exist in a form that can be addressed fairly through legislation. Though, we have tried indeterminant sentencing and this was seen as too harsh ... now we criticize mandatory minimums ... so, we effectively de-criminalize drugs and, to a large degree at least in CA, theft ... the pendulum keeps swinging all over the place.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Please quote one thing that I've said that is racist.

@Taxing Matters - The minute anyone talks about taking away 'Caucasian' privilege someone starts complaining about racism against European Americans. It's not racist to want equality and proportionate representation of minorities among jurors.

Read this.

---

This is not about White “privilege.” It’s about your implication that somehow White persons are more racist than others. That implication is borne out by assuming that simply having minorities on the jury would make it more fair, i.e. that minorities, simply because of their race, are more fair than white persons. But they are not necessarily any more fair. We know there are bigots in every race. While stating that wanting proportional representation is not racist is true as far as it goes, but when you come in here starting out stating that White people in particular are the problem, that comes across as racist, whether you meant to show bias against White people or not.

As to the article from EJI that you linked, it mostly targets the same issue I already mentioned: the use of the peremptory challenges and other tactics to strike eligible minorities off a jury. Those problems can be addressed, and I support doing that. It’s clearly wrong to keep minorities off a jury just because of their race. If you eliminate the peremptory challenges and ensure that the jury pools are drawn randomly from the entire adult population in the county or district where the trial is to be held then on average you should get juries with a racial make-up proportional to the racial make-up of that county/district. I think that’s a good way to try solving the problem.

But to take the extra step of forcing some rigid racial make-up requirement on every single jury would be extremely difficult to implement in practice and is, I think, offensive to the idea that we should pick the jury without regard to the race of the juror. If you want to see this idea implemented though, the place to write to ask for it is your state legislators with respect to state courts and your U.S. congressional representatives with respect to federal trials. They write the laws regarding jury requirements. I won’t support you on this idea, but maybe others would.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Your solution - a minority quota for juries - would over-complicate the judicial system.

Do you require only blacks be proportional to the population? Or, do we seek all demographics? Is the representation to hold true on all juries, or just 12 man juries? Where I live that might mean 7 whites, 4 Hispanics, and one SE Asian (no blacks). Do we therefore exclude blacks, Asian Indians, and Native Americans on juries in my county because it would create a situation where one of the other populations is UNDER-represented? What about women? Do we have to have 50% women on the jury? Do we account for age? Sexual preference? ... Where does that slippery slope end?

Should these percentages be based upon the most recent 10-year census? the updated census? Polls? Do we base it on legal residents, or do we also take into account illegal aliens? Do we guarantee representation on the jury itself, or just in the pool?

What if you do not get enough qualified applicants? Does the defendant then have to suffer a delay in his trial until a proper jury can be seated? What of the defendant's Constitutional right to a speedy trial?

There are too many hurdles to what you propose, not the least of which is the Constitution.

Legislation can fix disparities in sentencing if they exist in a form that can be addressed fairly through legislation. Though, we have tried indeterminant sentencing and this was seen as too harsh ... now we criticize mandatory minimums ... so, we effectively de-criminalize drugs and, to a large degree at least in CA, theft ... the pendulum keeps swinging all over the place.

---

If you could show disparities among the individual demographics and various scenarios you presented, then sure, we should consider having at least one person on the jury that could relate to that person and their demographic on a personal level. I'm referring to the actual jury itself.

To your point about indeterminate sentencing, I don't support it. Nor do I support mandatory minimums as they stand now. To give a 19 year old kid 30 years for a non-violent first time dumb mistake is asinine in my opinion. I do think that there should be set punishments for each and every crime and that it shouldn't be left up to the judge's discretion. That way, we can ensure each offender is being punished fairly, indiscriminately, and equally for having committed the same crime.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

This is not about White “privilege.” It’s about your implication that somehow White persons are more racist than others. That implication is borne out by assuming that simply having minorities on the jury would make it more fair, i.e. that minorities, simply because of their race, are more fair than white persons. But they are not necessarily any more fair. We know there are bigots in every race. While stating that wanting proportional representation is not racist is true as far as it goes, but when you come in here starting out stating that White people in particular are the problem, that comes across as racist, whether you meant to show bias against White people or not.

As to the article from EJI that you linked, it mostly targets the same issue I already mentioned: the use of the peremptory challenges and other tactics to strike eligible minorities off a jury. Those problems can be addressed, and I support doing that. It’s clearly wrong to keep minorities off a jury just because of their race. If you eliminate the peremptory challenges and ensure that the jury pools are drawn randomly from the entire adult population in the county or district where the trial is to be held then on average you should get juries with a racial make-up proportional to the racial make-up of that county/district. I think that’s a good way to try solving the problem.

But to take the extra step of forcing some rigid racial make-up requirement on every single jury would be extremely difficult to implement in practice and is, I think, offensive to the idea that we should pick the jury without regard to the race of the juror. If you want to see this idea implemented though, the place to write to ask for it is your state legislators with respect to state courts and your U.S. congressional representatives with respect to federal trials. They write the laws regarding jury requirements. I won’t support you on this idea, but maybe others would.

---

This is about Caucasian privilege. When you have a demographic of people who are randomly stopped, frisked, and search less than everyone else, who are convicted less often per prosecution than everyone else and even when they are convicted, receive lighter sentences more often than everyone else, and who receive the death penalty for convicted capital offenses less than everyone else, what do you call it if not Caucasian privilege?

My experiences in life have taught me that Western European descendants are less fair towards others, more cruel towards others, and more prone to go completely out of their way to screw other people over for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I think creating a system that guarantees minorities aren't tried by a jury comprised of all Caucasians is the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Why don't you go read a grammar book then get back to me.

It's reasoning such as yours that leads me to believe that there's something in the brains of West Europeans that prohibits them from understanding basic morality arguments. Though I feel some sentences in America are too harsh for certain crimes, I am of the belief that if you do the crime, you should do the time.... This is true of European Americans as well. You guys shouldn't get a free ride for crimes that you commit as is often the case. Minorities don't deserve to be sentenced more harshly than Caucasians for committing the same crime, that is a problem and something that needs to be fixed.

Just because Caucasians are convicted at a lower rate, that doesn't mean they're innocent or that they commit less crimes.... It just means that they're not convicted as often for crimes that they do commit.

---

and there are those racist foments again.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

If you could show disparities among the individual demographics and various scenarios you presented, then sure, we should consider having at least one person on the jury that could relate to that person and their demographic on a personal level. I'm referring to the actual jury itself.

---

Okay, what about affluence? Demographics also involve social status, or, "class," if you will. Should we have a means test? Should a wealthy person sit in judgement of a poor person? Vice versa? Where does the argument end? Your procedure would have no end, would result in an endless parade of appeals, clog the court system, render juries all but impossible to seat in many jurisdictions - at least in CA where they are drawn from voting rolls, and would ultimately be unwieldy.

Quote:

---

To your point about indeterminate sentencing, I don't support it. Nor do I support mandatory minimums as they stand now.

---

So ... what? Spin the Wheel of Fortune? If there are no guidelines, then what?

Quote:

---

To give a 19 year old kid 30 years for a non-violent first time dumb mistake is asinine in my opinion.

---

I have never heard of such a thing - at least in my state, but, I would tend to agree.

Quote:

---

I do think that there should be set punishments for each and every crime and that it shouldn't be left up to the judge's discretion.

---

Okay, so, NO wiggle room. Crime X has penalty Y. No room for mitigating circumstances? No room for plea bargains? The court system would bog down without some level of discretion.

Quote:

---

This is about Caucasian privilege.

---

What is? Juries???

Quote:

---

When you have a demographic of people who are randomly stopped, frisked, and search less than everyone else, who are convicted less often per prosecution than everyone else and even when they are convicted, receive lighter sentences more often than everyone else, and who receive the death penalty for convicted capital offenses less than everyone else, what do you call it if not Caucasian privilege?

---

Economics. Poorer people tend to get poorer representation because they lack the resources or the education/intelligence to assist in mounting a good defense.

Further, we can argue all day about the demographics of crime in the inner city and the manner in which crimes such as drug use and sales manifest themselves in the real world. The nature and location of the offense does play a part in the process, and this can make a difference in the facts of a case and thus the end result.

Quote:

---

My experiences in life have taught me that Western European descendants are less fair towards others, more cruel towards others, and more prone to go completely out of their way to screw other people over for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

---

Your experiences are not proof. I know people of ALL races that fit the description you provide. And shall we enter into a discussion of crime stats broken down by race???

Quote:

---

I think creating a system that guarantees minorities aren't tried by a jury comprised of all Caucasians is the right thing to do.

---

In theory, it may be a wonderful thing. It is how you might get there that is nigh on impossible.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And shall we enter into a discussion of crime stats broken down by race???

.

---

Uh oh. I know where you're going with this. You're about to destroy his entire premise by the clever use of actual facts.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Uh oh. I know where you're going with this. You're about to destroy his entire premise by the clever use of actual facts.

---

Yeah ... darn those facts!

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

My experiences in life have taught me that Western European descendants are less fair towards others, more cruel towards others, and more prone to go completely out of their way to screw other people over for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I think creating a system that guarantees minorities aren't tried by a jury comprised of all Caucasians is the right thing to do.

---

And you have just demonstrated your own racial bias against White people. My own experiences have shown that no race has a corner on being less fair or more cruel. I’ve seen poor behavior and cruelty from people of every race, and I’ve seen the good from each as well. You are judging White people as less fair simply because of their race. That is by definition racist. If a White person said that about minorities, I have no doubt you’d be screaming it was racist. Unfortunately, you can’t seem to see that in yourself.

I believe racial quotas to be a fundamentally flawed way to eliminate racism. My experience with affirmative action programs is that they tend to reinforce negative stereotypes instead of promoting more equality. Any time you make decisions based on race, you are perpetuating racism. That’s true even if your expressed goal in doing it is to try to eliminate racism. And that is why I won’t support your idea. I think it’s better to tackle the problem by looking for solutions that do not require any kind of racial preference; selecting or denying anyone because of race is simply wrong. The suggestions I’ve made do not require selecting jurors based on their race. And yet you don’t indicate you’d support those. Why not? They do have support in the minority community, after all.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

And you have just demonstrated your own racial bias against White people. My own experiences have shown that no race has a corner on being less fair or more cruel. I’ve seen poor behavior and cruelty from people of every race, and I’ve seen the good from each as well. You are judging White people as less fair simply because of their race. That is by definition racist. If a White person said that about minorities, I have no doubt you’d be screaming it was racist. Unfortunately, you can’t seem to see that in yourself.

I believe racial quotas to be a fundamentally flawed way to eliminate racism. My experience with affirmative action programs is that they tend to reinforce negative stereotypes instead of promoting more equality. Any time you make decisions based on race, you are perpetuating racism. That’s true even if your expressed goal in doing it is to try to eliminate racism. And that is why I won’t support your idea. I think it’s better to tackle the problem by looking for solutions that do not require any kind of racial preference; selecting or denying anyone because of race is simply wrong. The suggestions I’ve made do not require selecting jurors based on their race. And yet you don’t indicate you’d support those. Why not? They do have support in the minority community, after all.

---

^^^^ <repeatedly hits the imaginary LIKE button> :)

But the system holds minorities down man, it's the system that encourages them to rape, murder, steal, deal drugs. Free-will is non-existent in minorities because of Caucasians. :wallbang:

The system is flawed, but not because Caucasians are inherently or majorly racist. The argument you have made for this, makes you racist.

So you, sir/maam, are racist. How does that feel?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Okay, what about affluence? Demographics also involve social status, or, "class," if you will. Should we have a means test? Should a wealthy person sit in judgement of a poor person? Vice versa? Where does the argument end? Your procedure would have no end, would result in an endless parade of appeals, clog the court system, render juries all but impossible to seat in many jurisdictions - at least in CA where they are drawn from voting rolls, and would ultimately be unwieldy.

---

Always with the extremes. I repeat, if you could show disparities in any demographic of people, then applying specific quotas to that demographic's case would be worth taking a look at.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

So ... what? Spin the Wheel of Fortune? If there are no guidelines, then what?

---

Who said anything about there being no guidelines?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I have never heard of such a thing - at least in my state, but, I would tend to agree.

---

It's mostly when federal trafficking charges are being brought that you see these harsh minimum sentences for first time offenders.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Okay, so, NO wiggle room. Crime X has penalty Y. No room for mitigating circumstances? No room for plea bargains? The court system would bog down without some level of discretion.

---

It ensures fairness. I personally disagree with the death penalty, but if you're going to have it, it needs to be used consistently and not at the judge's discretion. For instance, men are 7 times more likely to receive the death penalty when convicted of first degree murder than women, that isn't right. If you're an adult and you make the decision to premeditatively commit murder, then the penalty should be consistent across the board.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

What is? Juries???

---

The fact that Caucasians are generally penalized less severely than other races for committing the same crime.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Economics. Poorer people tend to get poorer representation because they lack the resources or the education/intelligence to assist in mounting a good defense.

---

Yes, public defenders are generally worked much harder, have less time to devote to their assigned cases, and are paid much less than prosecutors are. I wonder why that is?

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Further, we can argue all day about the demographics of crime in the inner city and the manner in which crimes such as drug use and sales manifest themselves in the real world. The nature and location of the offense does play a part in the process, and this can make a difference in the facts of a case and thus the end result.

---

Speak plainly.....

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Your experiences are not proof. I know people of ALL races that fit the description you provide. And shall we enter into a discussion of crime stats broken down by race???

---

There it is!! I was waiting for this argument and I'm actually surprised that it took so long. What it says on paper, is meaningless, yes meaningless and I'll explain why. Caucasians have been trying to demonize people of African descent in this country for the past 400 years, it's nothing new. This "gang violence" and these skewed crime statistics are relatively new. Before the 80's, European Americans had nothing of a moral nature to pit against African Americans. By and large, the only group of people who were committing senseless acts of violence (mostly against African Americans), were Caucasians, and people in the Italian mafia committing acts of violence against one another.

Say that I'm a police officer and I dislike people who wear khakis, and I'm going to make a point to 'find a reason' to contact everyone I see who's wearing khakis (stop and frisk them without probable cause, stop them and ask questions with no probable cause, follow them for several minutes and wait for them to do something that gives me an excuse to pull them over, warrantlessly search their car and yes even plant something on them) and I'm only going to contact people who are wearing other attire when they're obviously doing something wrong and who obviously look suspicious. If I scrutinize people who are wearing khakis more than I scrutinize everyone else, at the end of 1 year, what do you think it's going to say on paper?..... It's going to appear as though people who wear khakis are just more prone to criminality, when in reality, they're just police more heavily....

Please understand, I do believe that most minorities who are in prison have broken the law and deserve to be there. But I also think if European Americans were scrutinized, randomly stopped without probable cause, randomly followed, and policed as heavily as minorities that there would be more of you guys in prison and the statistics would read much differently.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

In theory, it may be a wonderful thing. It is how you might get there that is nigh on impossible.

---

Anything is possible, but America doesn't have the best track record of doing the right thing.... Not until "she's" done the wrong thing for several hundred years, that is....

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Uh oh. I know where you're going with this. You're about to destroy his entire premise by the clever use of actual facts.

---

Please see my reply to cdwjava.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

And you have just demonstrated your own racial bias against White people.

---

Yes, I do believe that both historical and present day events easily show the evil, entitled, greedy, and destructive nature of West Europeans.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

My own experiences have shown that no race has a corner on being less fair or more cruel. I’ve seen poor behavior and cruelty from people of every race, and I’ve seen the good from each as well. You are judging White people as less fair simply because of their race. That is by definition racist. If a White person said that about minorities, I have no doubt you’d be screaming it was racist. Unfortunately, you can’t seem to see that in yourself.

---

We disagree, I believe that I have facts to show West Europeans are more cruel than other races. Both of the two largest wars this world has ever seen were instigated and fought primarily by West Europeans, West Europeans very savagely stole this land from the Natives, there have been more innocent civilians killed in Iraq than actual terrorist (the 'war on terror' was nothing more than a mission to steal their oil, btw), the obvious history of slavery in this country and the Americas, the worldwide European supremacist organizations such as the KKK, Skinhead, Aryan Brotherhood and countless others all prove what a wicked and evil abomination that West Europeans are. These aren't events that have been artificial manipulated or exaggerated, unlike how crime statistics can be.

Do you honestly believe that there are people who are of West European descent who are capable of feeling for others and who do good purely from the goodness of their hearts? Okay then, I rest my case.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

I believe racial quotas to be a fundamentally flawed way to eliminate racism. My experience with affirmative action programs is that they tend to reinforce negative stereotypes instead of promoting more equality. Any time you make decisions based on race, you are perpetuating racism. That’s true even if your expressed goal in doing it is to try to eliminate racism. And that is why I won’t support your idea. I think it’s better to tackle the problem by looking for solutions that do not require any kind of racial preference; selecting or denying anyone because of race is simply wrong. The suggestions I’ve made do not require selecting jurors based on their race. And yet you don’t indicate you’d support those. Why not? They do have support in the minority community, after all.[/SIZE][/FONT]

---

I would say that racial quotas would help mitigate the effects that racism potentially has on verdicts rather that 'eliminate' racism in American society. Until Europeans become a minority and are bred into extinction, racism is always going to be a problem, I think that 400 years of examining their behavior proves this.

Quote:

---

Quoting Pringle

---

But the system holds minorities down man, it's the system that encourages them to rape, murder, steal, deal drugs. Free-will is non-existent in minorities because of Caucasians. :wallbang:

The system is flawed, but not because Caucasians are inherently or majorly racist. The argument you have made for this, makes you racist.

So you, sir/maam, are racist. How does that feel?

---

Uhh I think you need to look at the statistics again. Caucasian males make up the vast majority of rapists.... The demographic that's most likely to rape and make up the vast majority of all rapists are Caucasian males between the ages of 25-35 while only comprising around 16% of the population..... European Americans and African Americans both do and sell drugs at similar rates, yet African Americans are 3 to 4 times more likely to be arrested for drug offenses. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rested-for-it/

Here's another excellent example of how European Americans ignore the wrongdoings of their fellow European American while "throwing the book" at African Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti5ZFmglzV4

If minorities generally aren't the ones who own the ships that transport the guns and drugs overseas, and they're not the ones with the passports and connections to get these foreign weapons and drugs into America, who's behind it all? It's funny how America can send soldiers half way around the world to give other nations "liberty", but it can't even take the time to clean up its streets right here at home..... I guess if America did that, these prison for profit systems wouldn't be all that profitably, now would they?

As far as stealing goes, are we referring to stealing other nations resources under the guise of a holy war? Or are we referring to an elderly lady being defrauded out of her life savings by Wall Street? Perhaps we're referring to highway robbers known as State Troopers and Highway Patrolmen acting under the name of government..... Were you aware that if you or I started a business in China, lived in China as Americans, and 100% of the revenue came from China's economy, America could still tax your income that was 100% generated in China? .... Sounds like theft to me.

You see, when you use words like "terrorist" or "theft" or "criminal activity" .... Your perspective really depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. To many people, men of West European descent would be the biggest group of terrorists and murderers that this world has ever seen. And based on the numbers, those people would be correct....

Either way, I'm done with this thread.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Do you honestly believe that there are people who are of West European descent who are capable of feeling for others and who do good purely from the goodness of their hearts? Okay then, I rest my case.

---

Yes, there are. Lots of them. Are there bad/greedy/whatever ones? Lots of them. Same goes for every race, creed, color, nationality on this planet. That you think someone is incapable of being a truly good person simply because of their racial background is not only cynical and jaded, it's racist.

Quote:

---

Quoting TryingTo

---

Either way, I'm done with this thread.

---

People keep saying that around here. Never seems to happen.