Pretty much every recent study has found that racial in-group and out-group biases impact the findings of guilt or innocence more than facts.

Is it possible to have a fair jury in a racially charged case?

Yes. But still the best system!

As with democracy, the fundamental problem with jury trials is trusting the general public, full of easily-emotionally-swayed idiots, to make decisions.

" Is it possible to have a fair jury in a racially charged case?"

According to that chart, it's not likely if you're a white
defendant.

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes. But still the best system!

---

If your jury was truly a "jury of your peers", then, if I were to be on trial, I would want males who own guns, attend church, and have a Ph.D.

Is race a factor? Yes, individuals of one race commit about 50% of all violet crimes (in the U.S.).
The numbers have not be weighted to reflect that fact.

Aggie Infantry said:

---

If your jury was truly a "jury of your peers", then, if I were to be on trial, I would want males who own guns, attend church, and have a Ph.D.

---

Bigot!
I'd settle for someone with a baccalaureate degree from the early 1980s.

doubledog said:

---

Is race a factor? Yes, individuals of one race commit about 50% of all violet crimes (in the U.S.).
The numbers have not be weighted to reflect that fact.

---

Purple crimes are worse

I would wave a jury trial and go for trial by judge if I was ever faced with charges.

Kansas Kid said:

---

I would wave a jury trial and go for trial by judge if I was ever faced with charges.

---

Terrible terrible idea.

Wouid you rather have one shot or twelve shots?

If you've ever served on a jury, you've likely been frustrated by its major flaw of which racial bias is just a subset. You have a mix of logic based and emotional based jurors.

The system plays to the emotional crowd and logic based people want to pull their hair out.

Not too terribly different from voters.

As we self segregate and Balkanize ourselves by social and politics groupings this will only get worse.

Those graphs tell me that blacks are far more racist than whites which everyone already knows.

anyone who attempts to say there is systemic racism in the criminal justice system needs to start with these facts first.

Didn't we learn this 30 years ago when the 'trial by jury' rendered OJ innocent?

Looks like blacks are biased and whites are pretty consistent. I'd imagine this is true in the US as well.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

As with democracy, the fundamental problem with jury trials is trusting the general public, full of easily-emotionally-swayed idiots, to make decisions.

---

It's scary when you look around at the absolute stupidity in society and think they're the ones who could sit on a jury.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes. But still the best system!

---

---

Yew may be on to something here.

Aggie Infantry said:

---

If your jury was truly a "jury of your peers", then, if I were to be on trial, I would want males who own guns, attend church, and have a Ph.D.

---

Only if you didn't do it!!!

Aggie Infantry said:

---

If your jury was truly a "jury of your peers", then, if I were to be on trial, I would want males who own guns, attend church, and have a Ph.D.

---

Just look at TexAgs - many discussions about how terrible jury duty is, and how to get out of it. Hard to get good juries that way.

Chart 1 shows that whites are non-bias (or far less bias) and non-whites are more bias.

This fits personal experience and reinforces my personal belief that whites are not the propagators of racism.

On a related note, look at the data behind cross-racial identification and how unreliable eyewitnesses are at identifying individuals outside of their own racial group.

Of course it's flawed, humans are involved. As Gipper says tho , it's the best system . It's better executed in some places vs others and in some trials vs others.

B-1 83 said:

---

Aggie Infantry said:

---

If your jury was truly a "jury of your peers", then, if I were to be on trial, I would want males who own guns, attend church, and have a Ph.D.

---

Just look at TexAgs - many discussions about how terrible jury duty is, and how to get out of it. Hard to get good juries that way.

---

Most of us here would not even have to try to get out of jury duty.

It's just not that hard to get out of... I've been selected to a group of 50 on 3 different occasions. Each time I had a mathematical possibility of being selected as my juror number was in the first quarter of those selected. In each instance, thru the 'voir dire' process, I was eliminated in the first round of questioning. I never gave an answer that should've slanted the vote in any way. However, as a college educated, working professional - they wanted me off the jury asap. Not sure if race came into play or not.

In my specific experiences, the lawyers were looking for (in no particular order) retirees, single women and non-white men. White collar, white men need not apply.

I've never been picked in 11 times . Just retired in December so perhaps your theory that they want retirees will be tested in the future. Very high level observation based on seeing who gets picked as opposed to who doesn't, one side or the other and maybe both want the least qualified jurors they can get for criminal trials.

This didn't seem based on the data provided an argument for eliminating juries but rather an argument for eliminating non-whites from juries.

ts5641 said:

---

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes. But still the best system!

---

---

Yew may be on to something here.

---

Singapore is a mult-ethnic and multi-cultural society which many people view as a competition among different tribes. The US jury trial system was designed when the US was much more homogeneous.

Jury Duty was initially relatively restricted. Just like voting. That's the beauty of a REPUBLIC over a DEMOCRACY: rule by the people … who meet a minimum criteria.

What you see with a breakdown in juries is the same issue as the electorate: when you extend civic responsibilities universally you necessarily discard criteria of exclusion which previously kept these institutions in check (by requiring that participants had their crap together before taking on these roles of higher responsibility).

Multiculturalism is the cause of most human problems. It is not biblical. It is not natural (in nature, zebras live among zebras and giraffes among giraffes). Multiculturalism is, in fact, a consequence of the natural human sentiment of jealousy. People have never migrated to achieve "diversity", but rather to take advantage of what others have. Whether it be Muslims to the west, or liberals to red states, it is the plague of the human condition.

zephyr88 said:

---

Didn't we learn this 30 years ago when the 'trial by jury' rendered OJ innocent?

---

a new generation is about to learn this in the karmelo anthony trial next year

If I read the charts correctly, the white juror conviction rates are very similar regardless of the ethnicity of the defendant. That is not true with juries of other ethnicities. One conclusion might be that to get a fair trial you would need to exclude certain ethnicities from the jury pool.

Serious Lee said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

Didn't we learn this 30 years ago when the 'trial by jury' rendered OJ innocent?

---

a new generation is about to learn this in the karmelo anthony trial next year

---

You think a Collin county jury won't be incentivized to bend over backwards to be fair to Karmelo?