Functionally I think your'e correct but perhaps not universally true on the motivation side. Sometimes people migrate to improve their and their families lot in life but not necessarily to take from others . Sometimes people may want their piece of the pie but they also see the possibility that they can also improve the overall pie production .

Trial by jury was invented because trial by judge only is worse, much worse.

Considering how whacked and lawless so many current judges have proven themselves to be, anyone wanting to put their lives in their solo hands should have their heads examined.

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.

---

This.

The trial by jury system is great on paper and in theory. But, like any other system, it has been twisted and both jurors and lawyers spend an inordinate amount of effort to exclude themselves or anybody that is seen as having the capability to think, from the jury. So you are left with 12 people who are, generally speaking, very much biased already and whom could not be struck from the jury list.

I'd rather see a system where say 30 people are given notice, each given a number and 12 numbers drawn out of a hat. That's the jury. That would be far more representative of a jury of peers than whittling down the pool to get the type of person one side or the other wants to increase their chances of a favorable verdict.

12 random people.

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

---

Gonna be kind of hard to not convict him considering he admitted he did it and there is video showing his claim of self defense was pure garbage.

Next June. Frisco, Texas That case starts where the fella stabbed/killed another at a high school track meet. He admitted to it.

If the jury race was equal to the represented ratio of the city population then you'd have 1 non-feathered Indian, 1 brotha/sista and 7 white folk.

The kid is guilty as he admitted to so if the jury looks like the one proposed above, that graph will be skewed.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

---

Who determines these qualities?

---

I think it's just a general statement that a morally upright and predominantly religious Christian society is what our form of government was meant for. Crazy that his quote upsets so many people…usually limp wristed liberal secularists. For most of us it's a "no duh" kind of statement.

It's very clear that the places that depart most from this have the most chaos, lawlessness, violence and deviancy.

Meanwhile, heavily heavily armed rural and suburban predominantly Christian/conservative/traditional communities are some of the safest, most law abiding places on earth…where citizens lookout for each other.

---

Cool, so who determines these qualities, or rather, who fits the description? Is it by being law abiding, owning guns, or both?

I see a lot of bashing the "other" but I'm not sure there's an answer as to who decides if someone is moral and Christian.

ETA: more on topic, is the issue that non-white folks have a bias against whites? If so, any issues with a jury consisting of people in the same demographics as the accused, for people of each race/ethnicity?

---

There are easy answers to both of these:

Being moral doesn't mean that you have to believe exactly as your neighbor or the dude down the street or across the state, nobody claims that. But a basic tenent of morality is simply doing what is right, don't do things that break the law, don't do things that harm your neighbor, etc. Basically the Ten Commandments in a nutshell, Golden Rule and all that. Pretty basic stuff here and things that have been considered right by humans for multiple thousands of years - even before Moses came down from the mountain.

Being Christian is pretty cut and dried as well - belief in Jesus is kind of the watermark. But one doesn't have to be a member of a certain faith, or any faith, to be Christian either.

Birdwatcher said:

---

And they have the right to given what our ancestors subjected their ancestors to

---

^
|
|

This guy doesn't get stricken from the jury pool.

My God what a stupid mentality.

American Hardwood said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

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.

---

IMO, a big part of the problem is that a healthy number of whites have fostered racism amongst blacks for the benefit of their own agendas whether personal or political. There is power in division.

---

So you are blaming this on white people?

---

Where did I say that? I said there are a portion of white people who are contributing to racial disharmony for their own benefit as a response to the post
that leaves the impression that whites are generally non participants in the race game. Whites can be race hustlers too

---

You are correct. Looks like we have some "allies" in this thread.

Birdwatcher said:

---

And they have the right to given what our ancestors subjected their ancestors to

---

Making excuses for racism

sam callahan said:

---

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.

---

I served on a jury two years ago for a man charged with domestic abuse with a deadly weapon, and all the women in the jury selection automatically had this man guilty

I think it is now because everything has become political. You have people that ignore the laws and make judgements based on propaganda.

An IQ test for the jury would help, but the government prefers low IQ jury members.

Birdwatcher said:

---

And they have the right to given what our ancestors subjected their ancestors to

---

My family was still in Italy when that was going on.

Try pulling your head out of your fourth point of contact and try again.

Jim Crow laws went well into the 20th century . You must be a kid based on your timeline

Keep reaching.