|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 23 2013 15:16 Zooper31 wrote:
How can you select a jury of all white women, 1 black/hispance and call that justice. What happened to having a balanced jury of males, females, and races? This just seems incredibly stupid imo.
where does this notion of "balanced jury" come from? constitution requires an impartial jury.
|
On June 23 2013 15:16 Zooper31 wrote:
How can you select a jury of all white women, 1 black/hispance and call that justice. What happened to having a balanced jury of males, females, and races? This just seems incredibly stupid imo.
I am not sure how race applies to jury selection. Justice is blind.Do you want a set amount of each race? On what size area city,county,state,nation,world. Should the jury be mandated to have at least 1 Chinese, 1 Indian, etc? According to wiki whites make up 81% of Florida's population.
|
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means).
|
dAPhREAk wrote:
where does this notion of "balanced jury" come from? constitution requires an impartial jury.
GwSC wrote:
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means).
Don't you think that its possible that people will have subliminal biases due to racial factors? considering the presence of such biases in nearly much every media outlet, not to mention throughout many many aspects of our society, I think it would be naive to assume they don't exist in peoples minds. the possible result being that without taking measures to avoid over representing any particular race (i.e. balancing the jury) there is no way the jury could truly be impartial. A jury that is heavily loaded with white people, for instance, would reflect the beliefs and values of the white culture more than others, and may be more critical of people who they identify as "others" (i.e. not white) and forgiving of their own.
|
On June 23 2013 17:06 GwSC wrote:
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means).
Of course the system will never come out and openly say that but everyone knows that the whole "justice is blind" thing is impossible to actually realize as long as humans are the ones administering it. Bias always in exists in some form in every single person. If bias didn't exist then jury selection wouldn't be such a huge part of a trial.
|
On June 23 2013 17:32 PrivateJimmy wrote:Show nested quote +dAPhREAk wrote:
where does this notion of "balanced jury" come from? constitution requires an impartial jury. Show nested quote +GwSC wrote:
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means). Don't you think that its possible that people will have subliminal biases due to racial factors? considering the presence of such biases in nearly much every media outlet, not to mention throughout many many aspects of our society, I think it would be naive to assume they don't exist in peoples minds. the possible result being that without taking measures to avoid over representing any particular race (i.e. balancing the jury) there is no way the jury could truly be impartial. A jury that is heavily loaded with white people, for instance, would reflect the beliefs and values of the white culture more than others, and may be more critical of people who they identify as "others" (i.e. not white) and forgiving of their own.
nobody said the criminal justice system was perfect. using arbitrary rules of forcing juries to be multiracial doesnt seem to me to make it more impartial. and zimmerman isnt "white" so lets not go down that road--he is mixed. moreover, any fear of bias against the defendant (the person entitled to an impartial jury; victims arent entitled to impartial juries by the way) would be for him to complain about, and i doubt he is complaining too much about the WASPs who are making up his jury.
|
On June 23 2013 17:32 PrivateJimmy wrote:Show nested quote +dAPhREAk wrote:
where does this notion of "balanced jury" come from? constitution requires an impartial jury. Show nested quote +GwSC wrote:
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means). Don't you think that its possible that people will have subliminal biases due to racial factors? considering the presence of such biases in nearly much every media outlet, not to mention throughout many many aspects of our society, I think it would be naive to assume they don't exist in peoples minds. the possible result being that without taking measures to avoid over representing any particular race (i.e. balancing the jury) there is no way the jury could truly be impartial. A jury that is heavily loaded with white people, for instance, would reflect the beliefs and values of the white culture more than others, and may be more critical of people who they identify as "others" (i.e. not white) and forgiving of their own.
They didn't say race can't lead to bias only that it would be silly for the legal system to say you need x amount of people of y race just because of that. There are a thousand of different things that can lead to bias, hence there are a lot of other things to consider when picking a jury. Also if you go by the logic of the last poster on the previous page you should have a jury that's not the race of the victim or the perpetrator since that would be the most unbiased right?
|
On June 23 2013 17:42 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2013 17:32 PrivateJimmy wrote:dAPhREAk wrote:
where does this notion of "balanced jury" come from? constitution requires an impartial jury. GwSC wrote:
Yeah, lets have our justice system officially admit that people can't possibly be impartial if someone is of a different race than them. Great idea. Like they've said, impartial, not "balanced" (whatever the hell that means). Don't you think that its possible that people will have subliminal biases due to racial factors? considering the presence of such biases in nearly much every media outlet, not to mention throughout many many aspects of our society, I think it would be naive to assume they don't exist in peoples minds. the possible result being that without taking measures to avoid over representing any particular race (i.e. balancing the jury) there is no way the jury could truly be impartial. A jury that is heavily loaded with white people, for instance, would reflect the beliefs and values of the white culture more than others, and may be more critical of people who they identify as "others" (i.e. not white) and forgiving of their own. They didn't say race can't lead to bias only that it would be silly for the legal system to say you need x amount of people of y race just because of that. There are a thousand of different things that can lead to bias, hence there are a lot of other things to consider when picking a jury. Also if you go by the logic of the last poster on the previous page you should have a jury that's not the race of the victim or the perpetrator since that would be the most unbiased right?
exactly...people are always trying to bring up racism because it is a sensational factor in an otherwise clear-cut investigation.
here you have a kid with gold teeth, possibly a druggie, and some texts on his phone that may hint at violent activity. not exactly a saint. walking about in the rain at night (???), unarmed. it's strange behaviour, if you ask me.
obviously excessive, lethal force was employed against the victim but there is nothing to suggest that an altercation had not willingly happened between both of them (i.e. neither of them stood down/retreated), nor is there a way to actually identify who the aggressor was. probably a terrible situation to be in for both parties but i'm inclined to think that what happened was the worst possible result of the combination of factors.
it teeters on the edge of justifiable homicide and manslaughter by negligence. a greatly reduced charge of negligent manslaughter without criminal intent would probably be the most appropriate...
|
dAPhREAk wrote:
nobody said the criminal justice system was perfect. using arbitrary rules of forcing juries to be multiracial doesnt seem to me to make it more impartial. and zimmerman isnt "white" so lets not go down that road--he is mixed. moreover, any fear of bias against the defendant (the person entitled to an impartial jury; victims arent entitled to impartial juries by the way) would be for him to complain about, and i doubt he is complaining too much about the WASPs who are making up his jury.
gruff wrote:
They didn't say race can't lead to bias only that it would be silly for the legal system to say you need x amount of people of y race just because of that. There are a thousand of different things that can lead to bias, hence there are a lot of other things to consider when picking a jury. Also if you go by the logic of the last poster on the previous page you should have a jury that's not the race of the victim or the perpetrator since that would be the most unbiased right?
GwSC did ask what the hell a balanced jury could be, I felt its important to note that if a jury is really impartial, then it is necessarily balanced due to social factors. put another way, because of bias in society, balance between groups (however they are divided) is necessary for a jury to be impartial.
I'm don't know how it would be possible to select a truly impartial jury, I only believe that it should be something to strive towards. Of course there is socioeconomic status, age, gender, and many other factors that must be balanced and it should be a process that does not overlook these things.
I think it would be better to have a jury that is diverse as possible in all these categories to evenly represent every possible view point, than to have one group overwhelmingly supported. As is the case, women are pretty much deciding justice in this case. The problem with this is that given the range of media, products, and social expectations that are projected towards women, they will most likely have a drastically different perspective on the world and set of values than a man. This is not always the case, I'm not about to generalize women like this, but there is a subtle pressure society pushes on them and I would be very surprised to see it completely absent in every single one of the jurors.
|
shadymmj wrote:
exactly...people are always trying to bring up racism because it is a sensational factor in an otherwise clear-cut investigation.
here you have a kid with gold teeth, possibly a druggie, and some texts on his phone that may hint at violent activity. not exactly a saint. walking about in the rain at night (???), unarmed. it's strange behaviour, if you ask me.
obviously excessive, lethal force was employed against the victim but there is nothing to suggest that an altercation had not willingly happened between both of them (i.e. neither of them stood down/retreated), nor is there a way to actually identify who the aggressor was. probably a terrible situation to be in for both parties but i'm inclined to think that what happened was the worst possible result of the combination of factors.
it teeters on the edge of justifiable homicide and manslaughter by negligence. a greatly reduced charge of negligent manslaughter without criminal intent would probably be the most appropriate...
I think a problem I see is distinguishing between overt racism and subliminal racism. I would wonder if the kid was white and everything else was the same if he would have been shot. I don't think it would be as likely in the least. But this is a racist attitude that is reflected throughout society. We are constantly reminded that black people are dangerous, especially when they fit the description you gave. This attitude is more perpetrated by society that any individual.
I'd have a hard time laying the fault on Zimmerman because I expect he would do everything in his power to not be racist under any circumstance. However when a persons life is in danger, they are not going to consider if they are being racist. They are going to act on what they know, and what he knew -what society taught him- is that people like Trayvon Martin are gang members and murderers.
|
On June 23 2013 18:24 PrivateJimmy wrote:Show nested quote + shadymmj wrote:
exactly...people are always trying to bring up racism because it is a sensational factor in an otherwise clear-cut investigation.
here you have a kid with gold teeth, possibly a druggie, and some texts on his phone that may hint at violent activity. not exactly a saint. walking about in the rain at night (???), unarmed. it's strange behaviour, if you ask me.
obviously excessive, lethal force was employed against the victim but there is nothing to suggest that an altercation had not willingly happened between both of them (i.e. neither of them stood down/retreated), nor is there a way to actually identify who the aggressor was. probably a terrible situation to be in for both parties but i'm inclined to think that what happened was the worst possible result of the combination of factors.
it teeters on the edge of justifiable homicide and manslaughter by negligence. a greatly reduced charge of negligent manslaughter without criminal intent would probably be the most appropriate...
I think a problem I see is distinguishing between overt racism and subliminal racism. I would wonder if the kid was white and everything else was the same if he would have been shot. I don't think it would be as likely in the least. But this is a racist attitude that is reflected throughout society. We are constantly reminded that black people are dangerous, especially when they fit the description you gave. This attitude is more perpetrated by society that any individual. I'd have a hard time laying the fault on Zimmerman because I expect he would do everything in his power to not be racist under any circumstance. However when a persons life is in danger, they are not going to consider if they are being racist. They are going to act on what they know, and what he knew -what society taught him- is that people like Trayvon Martin are gang members and murderers.
That's not an issue that can be handled in court. It doesn't matter whether society encourages racism, or whether the defendant could be a closet racist, As long as there is no way to prove that the defendant held racist attitudes AND displayed violent tendencies (some of the worst racists I know wouldn't actually harm a fly), then there is no point bringing up the topic of race. Can't be proven,
|
shadymmj wrote:
That's not an issue that can be handled in court. It doesn't matter whether society encourages racism, or whether the defendant could be a closet racist, As long as there is no way to prove that the defendant held racist attitudes AND displayed violent tendencies (some of the worst racists I know wouldn't actually harm a fly), then there is no point bringing up the topic of race. Can't be proven,
This case has the potential to confront the issue of racism in our society. If taken far enough, it may lay down a precedent that defines whether or not subliminal racism perpetuated by society is the equivalent of overt racism that a person acknowledges in themselves.
Was Trayvon Martin shot because he was black? Given the evidence it may be impossible to prove, which would make this case fairly irrelevant seeing as it would end with Zimmerman's actions being justified and societies racist tendencies continuing.
However one must consider, given a jury partially composed of people who themselves may be subjected to such racist attitudes, if they would view this as racist. If Zimmerman was found as acting in a racist way, the difference between subliminal versus conscious racism could be confronted. The implications of which would be profound for our society, as a precedent may be set that would prohibit all such racism. The courts in that case would dictate the actions of society, which has happened in the past with cases like Brown v. Board of Education, where our entire education system was altered.
|
I thought this subject died about a year ago. The revive of this thread is fucking pathetic.
User was warned for this post
|
He's in court on murder 2 charges, dumbass
|
You can watch the trial live here.
|
Looks like the Defense just started their opening statements. I'm not particularly fond with how the Defense is starting. He's taking a very long time to get to the point. The jury is going to get bored.
|
On June 24 2013 23:48 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like the Defense just started their opening statements. I'm not particularly fond with how the Defense is starting. He's taking a very long time to get to the point. The jury is going to get bored.
I was thinking the same. Up until the Defense started speaking, I was thinking he was going to get off. not so sure anymore.
|
On June 25 2013 00:57 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2013 23:48 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like the Defense just started their opening statements. I'm not particularly fond with how the Defense is starting. He's taking a very long time to get to the point. The jury is going to get bored. I was thinking the same. Up until the Defense started speaking, I was thinking he was going to get off. not so sure anymore.
I dunno if I would go that far. Mostly it's an issue of persuasive style. The prosecutor started off with a bang by reciting his best evidence. The defense meandered into an opening state by talking about a bunch of irrelevant stuff, telling a bad joke, and even drawing an objection from the prosecution that was sustained. Not very compelling advocacy.
|
See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
|
On June 25 2013 01:25 xDaunt wrote:
See, if I were the Defense, I would have started my opening statement with a description of Zimmerman's injuries and what's going to be shown in the photos of those injuries. That's their best evidence. Put that on first, and let the jury view everything else through that prism. This evidence is just now being mentioned most of 2 hours into the opening statement.
Beaten and bloodied is definitely the way I would have started it. Two black eyes, broken nose, cuts to the face and head. "If he hadn't defended himself, it might be a completely different murder trial we're at today." would be what I'd go with as the defense.
My opinion on this case has changed dramatically- at first I was sure it was racially inspired homicide, now it looks to be easily self-defense. I'm interested to see how this plays out though.
Something I missed was the $1m+ payout to Trayvon's family from the HoA. If the criminal trial hasn't even started, why would the HoA settle with the Martins for over a mill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
