I suggest you read the U.S. Supreme
Court decision on jury selection and bias against blacks. I am sure
my intelligent readers will conclude that the majority argument is
wildly overstepping its bounds with serious overreach. The three
conservative justices offer reasoned and convincing arguments about
the law.
The court wastes its time arguing about the kind of evidence needed to prove anti-black prejudice in jury selection.
I disagree strongly with the logic of
the majority decision, but favor radical change in voir dire (jury selction) ...
regardless. The majority seems to think that prejudice about skin
color is the paramount issue (there was one black male on the jury and
one latino). Limiting concern about prejudice to skin color alone is nonsense.
Why is prejudice for, by or about blacks significantly different in jury deliberation from any other prejudice -- for or against women, old people, men, tatoos, rich people, poor people or small green eyes?
The only proper jury is one that
represents a wide variety of prejudices ... ordinary humans, in other
words. To get such a real jury we need to make many changes: to pay the prevailing wage for
jury duty, have child care in the court house, hold court hours so they allow real
people to get work done (7 am to 1 pm), have very few reasons for
getting off a jury and make everyone chosen serve with no
pre-emptory challenges.
How long do we wait until reason and intelligence prevail in the court room?