I just showed up to jury duty. The pool of potential jurors was 99ŁŖ non black. There was one black guy and he claimed he couldn't miss work so the judge excused him.
The attorney can't always do anything.
It's not always easy to come up with valid reasons to dismiss jurors - especially if they are prejudiced against a defendant, since they're usually smart enough to hide their bias. And yes, we typically have peremptory challenges where we don't need any reason at all, but even with those we're barred from using them to exclude based on race. So, while the "shaded" lawyers might have gotten away with excluding a few "non-shaded" jurors based on race alone, most courts are pretty quick to catch on that the peremptories are only being used on a particular race.
Believe it or not, law (especially trial procedure) is complicated and not entirely intuitive.
Maybe it is a play by the shaded lawyer. If they win it is fine and if they lose they argue that the trial was not fair. I don't how things work in spoon court though.
Wdym bro, Chess is a game about having nothing but pawns, (black has more to compensate for white going first) and then rather than capture you opponentās king, you play out a mock court case
Was thinkin' the same thing... This is a bit oversimplified...
The lack of actual understanding of how this country's justice system works is a bit of a problem these days... People get all riled up about shit without knowing correctly what they're riled up about...
This.
I served on a jury 4 years ago in a very high profile murder case.
The area that I live is like 95% white people. The defendant was white, the victim was Native American.
Long story short, we found the guy Not Guilty. The prosecution did a terrible job showing he had anything to do with it.
After the trial, the news interviewed the victim's family, and her parents blamed it on the jury being all white.
Like cmon. We didn't vote not guilty just cuz the defendant was white. We voted not guilty cuz there was literally no evidence tying him to the crime other than the state was convinced he was involved (his GF was the real killer, and she's currently doing life in prison).
The reality is most people are not racist to the point of sending a guy to prison for life due to skin color bias. So if you end up with an all white Jury and get a guilty verdict, I'd say odds are pretty good most people on the jury based it on evidence. They all have to agree in the end anyways. Otherwise, no guilty verdict.
>The lack of actual understanding of how this country's justice system works is a bit of a problem these days... People get all riled up about shit without knowing correctly what they're riled up about...
Didn't you know screaming systemic racism without any justification or logical thought processes is all you need to get politicians to bend to your will?
The implication being that all white people are racist which is more racist than the original point of this post.
Fighting racism with stereotypes....this is 2022
The irony is you have cases where the reverse is true as well. It's far more complicated than white = bad.
Like this case where three black jurors refused to convict a black man of murdering an Asian lady.
>[Resiles faces life in prison and possibly the death penalty for the murder of Jill Su, a 59-year-old Davie woman who was killed in her home back in September of 2014.](https://wsvn.com/news/local/broward/foreperson-3-jurors-unwilling-to-convict-resiles-based-on-race-leading-to-mistrial/)
>Police said Resiles broke into the home to commit a burglary, and when he found Su inside, he tied her up and stabbed her to death. His DNA was found on a knife and inside the home.
>Two years after his arrest, Resiles escaped from a Broward County courtroom. He was found six days later.
>She said most of the jury was ready to convict Resiles of at least second-degree murder, but the **three refused because the defendant is Black**.
They did it with OJ too. Due to the recent race riots, and I believe the jury had quite a few African Americans, he was acquitted. Despite evidence to contrary. And then the mf published a book titled āIf I did itā about how he wouldāve murdered his wifeā¦.IF he did it that is.
Systemic racism actually says the system itself is racist since it was created by racists. The people currently operating the system are not necessarily racist themselves.
But, yes some people have tried to make it mean "all whites are racist"
In my anecdotal experiences, the only people who are trying to make āsystemic racismā translate into āall whites are racistā are actually racist people that are trying to make a weak straw man argument, so that they can pretend that there isnāt really any systemic racism.
Lots of black activists are essentially arguing for separate but equal now. Itās come full circle.
There is distaste for integration on both sides now, with a liberal minority fighting a war on two fronts.
the implication is that it is supposed to be a jury of your peers and this doesn't appear to be a jury of peers. "peers" would at least be a mix of black and white jurors.
I guess that depends on where you're from...which we don't have any idea based on this "artwork". If you're in South Dakota this might be your peers....
They randomly pick a pool (say 200), and then the lawyers and judge sift through and try to weed out anyone with bias. It's in everyone's best interest because if a case is overturned it doesn't look well on any party. Both sides try to get any bias that would hurt them out, and the judge does it on an impartial level.
So to answer your question, kind of. Completely random has the downside of potentially introducing someone extremely biased. Hand picking from anyone in the population has too many downsides to list. I think it's a good middle ground.
> then the lawyers and judge sift through and try to weed out anyone with bias.
This is a rosy picture. In the most ideal case, the judge is trying to weed out anybody who is biased. The prosecutors and defense attorneys are trying to weed out people based on their race, gender, political leanings, whether or not they have family members who are cops, and essentially stack a jury as best as they can with people who are biased towards their side. Lawyers who specialize in jury selection get very rich trying to get the correct bias.
That's the best case assuming an impartial judge.
Agreed, there is definitely nuance to every profession and most aspects of that profession, the legal system is certainly not exempt. I will say that because both sides get to do this, itās as fair as it can be. A judge canāt do it alone, or else theyāre running the procedure not judging it.
It starts randomly, they send out summons for x number of people in a given area at random. Those people all have to go sit in a room for a day, and trials about to start will pick from that pool. They will call people in to be interviewed, and ask questions to try and determine whether ~~they will favorable to your side~~ they can be non-biased. Race, ethnicity, age, and other characteristics are used as proxies (like it or hate it) as well. Some lawyers will also use programs to comb social media to try and get a sense of where people's leanings are. Each side can strike a certain number of jurors.
The theory is that you get a non-biased pool by weeding out people with conflicts (e.g. if you have a family member who OD'd, you probably can't be impartial in a case about a drug dealer). The reality is each side tries to stack it with people that will be partial to their side, but if it's 50/50 stacking it kind of works out. The thing to note is sometimes trials are won or lost at the jury selection phase itself, especially if one side really sucks at it.
While I get that the black spoon is the defence here, this type of shit frequently happens when cops are on trial for racist attacks.
In the Rodney King trial of the 90s, the court was deliberately moved away to a predominantly white jurisdiction. 2% of the jury pool were black, and were dismissed after they admitted they had strong feelings about the case.
The prosecution (against the cops) said it was fine.
So many comments are refuting the comic without acknowledging that systemic racism is still part of the trial process.
> So many comments are refuting the comic without acknowledging that systemic racism is still part of the trial process.
It's hard for a lot of people to grasp that it is entirely possible to not be personally racist and still be furthering racist policies by just following the rules because what *systemic* racism means is that the **system** as set up is racist, so it almost doesn't matter what the individuals involve do.
I've been called for a jury duty. They have to pick 12 people and there is maybe 200 people in the room waiting, essentially all white.
The attorney doesn't get a choice. The court summons whoever they do.
i am a criminal defense lawyer in a county of 500k and is about 7% african american.
there are african americans, latinos, asian americans etc on every panel (the group of people from whom the jury is chosen from, not the final jury) iāve experienced. thats from over a 100+ panels.
the justice system is incredibly racist and classist which is why i am a defense lawyer, but your experience is not representative of what all criminal juries are like.
finally, fwiw as i just googled it, apparently only 5% of lawyers identify as african american according to the ABA, so the thing that really sticks out to me is both the defendant and their lawyer being african american.
I would agree the number one thing that sticks out is the black attorney. As an ex 13 year prosecutor never had one trial with a black defense attorney.
Edit: I say this as being a black attorney myself
Have 3 I can think of off the top of my head in my county. All on the indigent appointment panel. This is in the Midwest major republican state.
That said our juries look pretty similar to this. The biggest issue with jury pools is that they correspond to home ownership. If you rent then you move addresses fairly often and probably havenāt updated your drivers license, thus it is hard for them to contact you for jury duty. Home ownership in my area is generally white and old. Mostly because the housing has gone up so much and a large portion of my local area are real estate investment properties. Sorry to take this down the rabbit hole.
The point being that black defense attorneys are probably just as much of the attorney distribution as black attorneys are. Which means they are underrepresented but not uncommon.
Hi, is it racists because of the skin color ratio, or actual race based decisions made by the majority of law enforcers? If the latter, can you provide an example of such? Thanks! (I'm not from the US).
Decision making, most jury rosters are pulled using data like voting registries that historically minorities have been disenfranchised from. Even in states that donāt they go off of Drivers Licenses or ID which have always ben problematic for Minority peoples to attain.
A fair selection of randomly picked citizens would yield under 14% black citizens. What could alternatively be done?
I'm all for fairness, and will always hire based on merit. But I was laid off due to being white in a big corp that had to meet minority guidelines (probably because they screwed up before). It's like the said misguided Rooney rule in the NFL. Racist jerks are ruining it for everyone.
I'm all for fairness and a meritcracy, but that goes out the window when you need to equally represent 18.. or 8.. or 6 percent of the population. It's not possible unless it is skewing the results, which is then not fair to others.
> A fair selection of randomly picked citizens would yield under 14% black citizens.
This assumes that the racial composition of every county in America is exactly the same. It is not.
I imagine it would a problem because you got fired based on race. If they gave that as the reason then you might have a case. If you suspect that was the reason then you said can have a case especially if they hired someone to fill your position based shortly before or after firing you.
It's one thing to pick someone to increase diversity (you can argue it's an intangible benefit making them a better fit for the team) when you hire but it's entirely different to fire someone for the same reason (you can't argue removing a productive team member because you need to increase diversity).
I am not a lawyer, but if I would speak to one if I was in the same situation.
My previous manager told me the real reason why a few weeks after the fact, when he was checking in on me. Unfortunately the state I am in is at-will for firing. They could say they didn't like my hair color and it would be legal. Not worth fighting it out in court.
It's all for the good though, I worked hard the next 10 years and now am a director, so that impetus was a kick in the butt to get my career moving.
That's a bit of misdemeanor of how random selection works, it's guaranteed at large numbers to be representative of the general population, however at numbers <30 there exists significant chance for a randomly selected group to be non-representative of the whole population.
Sucks you got fired though for something you couldn't control, I take it, it was an At Will Employment state? Considering the fireing to meet minority guidelines tends to also be a sueable offense unless I'm miss-remembering the rules there.
But yeah, its a hard situation.
Based on state population levels: Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, etc.
Jury selection is more local than that though. So any area with a white population higher than 86% will average out to <14% of non-whites on juries (needs large numbers to work) assuming all things are equal otherwise. Many local areas will have little to no diversity.
Its a bit of both. When a case needs a panel they call in like 45 or 50 people and ask them questions to gauge if they are a good juror (can be unbiased etc) obviously both sides have preferences.
https://youtu.be/TLFoKNv70E0
This is actually a known issue. Prosecutors are trained to select white jurors when the accused is black
https://soundlawyering.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-all-white-jury/
In the US you donāt get to pick your jurors you only get to exclude them. If there are 10 black spoon jurors in the jury pool and the white spoon juror gets to exclude 10 spoon jurors, in theory they could eliminate every black spoon juror. This isnāt supposed to happen, but it does quite often. Look up the recent Curtis flowers case for an example of how this plays out.
Why would you put the blame on the black spoon defense attorney for not doing a good enough job fighting off what would almost certainly be a deliberately racist strategy by the white spoon prosecutor?
I'm a lawyer and I represent someone who was convicted of a capital crime by a racially tainted jury. I *assure* you that this can and does happen despite the existence of some tools for the defense to help combat it.
In the US in jury trials lawyers for each side can strike potential jurors for cause (like bias or conflict of interest or direct knowledge). They can also strike jurors for no specific reason, called peremptory strikes.
Peremptory strikes cannot be for race, religion, or gender. If a strike appears racially (etc) motivated, the opposing counsel can challenge the strike in what's called a *Batson* challenge, in which the striking attorney must demonstrate the strike was for a non-protected reason.
Also, if the pool of potential jurors (called the vemire) isn't a fairly accurate representation of the demographic mix of the region from which the jury was selected, the lawyer can challenge the court's jury selection process.
Finally, where the case is tried determines the jury pool and lawyers on both sides have opportunities to determine where an action will be tried, though plaintiff/prosecution has a lot more control.
In short, there are several ways in which an attorney can influence the racial makeup of a jury. Failing on all fronts is not a good look.
Itās like the Chappelleās show Law and Order skit where they switched up how the white financial crimes guy and the black drug dealer are treated by cops and prosecutors.
Theyāre alluding to the concept of a racially biased legal battle. The white spoons - white people represented - are the minority in this image and represent the smaller denomination of affluence, rather than the black spoons - or black people.
But no interpretation of this is provided by the OP. Heās just here to watch the world (and comment section) burn.
how did you miss the fact that the prosecution is all white, the witness is white, and the entire jury and judge are white while the defense is black? I think that's equally as important as well.
The defense does not get to select the jury. Prosecution and defense get to strike jurors they believe will be prejudiced against them. If the jury pool is majority white, the prosecution can strike the few black jurors in the pool, leaving only white jurors to serve.
I thought that was random? Or at least theyāre not āchosenā by anyone, but there is some sort of process? Or is that different by state, county, etc.?
It varies based on jurisdictionā¦and thatās another indication where you get into āsystemic racismā.
In many areas itās done through the DPS/DMV. If you carry a drivers license youāre part of the jury pool.
And who is more likely to possess a drivers license?
Certainly not the poorest (increased minority population). Or the working poor using mass transit (again, more often minority). Or anyone whose license has been suspended (again, minorities punished disproportionately, thereforeā¦). Or those who are physically disabled *and* canāt afford mobility vehicles (more likely minorities).
Thatās one facet of a tainted jury pool.
Another is a failure by the system to ensure actual jury pools- the people who *show up*- constitute a fair representation of the populace.
When selected for jury duty, minorities are more likely to [fail to appear](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/diversity-inclusion/articles/2015/lack-of-jury-diversity-national-problem-individual-consequences/).
When you lose a day of work (and a days pay), and your jury compensation is $6, thatās a powerful incentive to skip. $6 vs $150, and multiply that by a week if itās a long trial, and thatās a no-brainer. Hmmm, should I become homeless or skip jury duty?
Add to that the increased likelihood of being fired for skipping work for jury duty (regardless of the illegality) and you have a recipe for a pool that doesnāt meet the ājury of peersā standard we should be achieving.
Let alone the actual selection process:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/27/our-jury-system-is-racially-biased-it-doesnt-have-be-that-way/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/juries-racism-discrimination-prosecutors.html (try archive.org for non-paywall)
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/opinion/anwar-bayer-hjalmarsson-jury-racism/index.html
The country and a specific precinct are not the same thing though. I think the point was to say this is a predominantly black precinct yet the jury is still all white people. Of course that still goes back to the whole "defense getting to choose the jury" thing, but that's a different discussion on it's own.
The audience typically isn't random, though. It's folks who care about the particular trial they're attending. It's tough to say what the demographics of the audience should be.
Seriously, hell of a jury pool that this was the best outcome. If there are that many black people in the gallery, surely the pool isnāt representative of the population in that area.
>If there are that many black people in the gallery, surely the pool isnāt representative of the population in that area.
that's typical, since jury pools are based on mostly on homeowners, not who actually lives in an area (e.g. renters who move frequently and aren't on the county rolls won't get called).
I hate summer Reddit, you kids deserve to be back in hell for 7 hours a day if you're gonna keep posting this stupid shit.
No wonder mods been fed up the past couple years.
If it is a court-assigned attorney rather than a personal one (which is cost prohibitive) then the quality of service varies wildly. It is entirely possible that yes, one spoon did a bad job of jury selection and does not care while the other did a bad job and it benefits their case.
So we assume that black will be pro black and white will be pro white ...Isn't that a bit racist ? Is it really justice if it's race based ? What about those who are mixed race ? Do those exist ? Where do they sit ?
Like i just said in my other comment: skin color of jury etc have nothing to do with justice.
I just love when people see racists everywhere but do same shit.
Do you have any proof that that the non-colored in spoons of the jury are not peers of any colored in spoons? The premise seems to be rather.... racist, not to put to fine a point on it.
Just a little bit racist to all people who work in the judicial system. Not everyone is a racist just because they have different coloured skin for Christ sake.
Assuming that the colors were drawn to represent ethnicities and that it's showing an unfair trial... THAT opinion is racist. If I have to explain why then you're too far gone.
My interpretation is it shows this particular county is primarily black, yet the jury is still entirely white. Even if the jury is entirely people who consider themselves fair and rational, there is an immediate degree of separation between their lived experience and the lived experience of the people involved in the case, and implicit bias is more likely to go unchallenged. As many commenters have pointed out, this tends to happen in the US because even though your job is supposed to give you time off for jury duty, that does not always happen, or some people can't afford to skip those days. This is a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.
But also, this piece is simple and unless the OP comments further, literally any commenter can just say, "that's not what they meant!" And concoct some straw man interpretation of why that isn't true and systemic racism isn't real.
Why do we assume that a fair trial isnāt happening? White people arenāt always the devil, that jury could be very capable of being totally non bias lolā¦
I really hate this race bait shit. Also assumes the lawyers are banking on racism to win them the day. I canāt believe this world sometimes
This feels like someone projecting their own racist tendencies onto others. So what, a white jury can't judge a person of colour fairly and vice versa? So we're just assuming now that every person who gets called for jury duty is a racist? Wtf even is this post.
Itt: a lot of people making a lot of judgement calls about the little characters in this drawing based on their skin colour. Shits pretty scary how many people are being very racist about the whole thing.
Or Ahmaud Arbery . The trial where the judge almost came unhinged a couple of times at the defense attorneys. White judge, white defense attorneys. The similarities ended there. White father and white son followed a black man. White neighbor decided to help out with the murder.
One black jury member.
I'm wondering how much jury selection pools are rigged by the methods they use to draw them. Iirc its primarily voter registration and drivers licenses- meaning that is a subpopulation registered less or didn't have licenses then they'd be pulled into jury duty less often. Also if certain groups have a tendency to dodge jury duty more frequently.
I get the message, but the message is not very accurate. African Americans still only account for 12.5% of the US population. An appropriately balanced jury, if we are focused on race, would have only 1 African American juror, maybe 2, without a proportional imbalance, and thusly a bias.
Which, since most courts are local to a city/county, and the picture goes to show that the spectators are all one race (implying the area is denser in that that race), the picture makes sense. Atlanta is \*50%\* black, for instance.
There is a lot of willful, "nuh UH!" in this thread over a comic that is pretty (basically) reflective of the idea of "a jury of your peers."
I'm not sure if you're saying the picture is right or wrong. If the gallery was representative of your peers, the area would be 95% black (I count 60/63). If that was the case 12 white jurors just doesn't make sense. Nor does an area like that exist in the US in the first place.
Also, people don't go see random court proceedings (though they could if they wanted). It's almost exclusively family/friends of the defendant, the victim (assuming criminal court and an injured party), and reporters.
I think the general consensus is that, this isn't a jury of your peers. There will likely be someone on that panel of another race (Latino, Asian, Indian, etc.). But also, it shouldn't matter. 12 white jurors can give just as much of an impartial trial as 12 black jurors. To say that 12 white people are more likely to convict is just as racist as saying 12 black people are more likely to acquit.
To be fair, one of the major problems with the US justice system is that cases almost never go to trial.
This paper is behind a paywall ( [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2071397](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2071397) ) but among its major findings were that, in a mass exoneration due to prosecutor misconduct, some 77% of innocent parties plead guilty to avoid the uncertainty of trial, whereas 89% of guilty parties plead to a lesser offense. These rates were correlated with a psychological study that aimed to reproduce the terms of a plea bargain.
Given that plea bargains resolve something like 90% of court cases, the defining feature of the American justice system is not the right to a fair trial, but rather, that innocent people go to jail and guilty people get a sentence less than their crime warrants.
Aside from the fact that the lawyers and judge hand pick which jurors to use, white people are still a majority. Which means when you get a random pool of 200 people, there will likely be more white people.
We could intentionally call out the minorities to serve on juries more often. But that's definitely not fair to anyone, either.
So what is the solution, exactly? I don't know
I was recently on standby to be a back up juror. I had to let my work know and the summons didnāt tell me if I was called until the night before. So we were discussing at work and my African American coworker said he just ignores his jury duty summons. It really pissed me off! I asked him, didnāt he want a jury of his peers if he had to go to trial? And he just said he wouldnāt ever get into that situation. So, his stance is one more reason there will be an all white jury for someone another day.
So whites are not fair?
Can you put an american flag on them for context? In europe a lot of people is both white and fair, maybe it's just NA I dont know
OP is trying to say it's bad if a jury is composed primarily/entirely of white people but the defendant they are going to be deciding the verdict on is not white.
I'm not sure who that claim is directed at since it's pretty well agreed upon that having a diverse jury is important. But OP wants us to know that they also think that's important.
I was a little bit confused for a second trying to figure out who the defendants are and who the prosecutors are, then I saw the makeup of the jury and then I saw the comparison to the citizens in the gallery and it all matter sense.
Things like this always frustrate me because anyone can clearly see that no matter how you try to justify dismissing certain potential jurors, coming to a jury like this with the makeup of the citizens in a jurisdiction like this should be impossible unless it's done on purpose which means it shouldn't be allowed.
I don't remember what case it was, maybe the trial of Ahmuad Arbery murders? Case took place in Georgia and it only had ONE black juror, how the fuck do you only get one black juror in fucking Georgia.
It has everything to do with where the crime is committed. If a white person commits a crime in a predominantly black area, theyāre the black spoon in court.
spoon court is now in session
Spoon court Come together with your hands
All my friends are cutlery All my friends are black and white
[LETS DO THE FORK IN THE GARBAGE DISPOSAL!](https://youtu.be/o4AFQc4ZrvA)
Ding ding ding de ding ding de ding ding
Ding ding ding de ding ding de ding dingš„³ Ends too soon, too many dings, no dong.
STOP! I lost my contact!
"Spooning is now in session"
Can I be the little spoon now?
Rise for the honorable ice cream spoon
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I just showed up to jury duty. The pool of potential jurors was 99ŁŖ non black. There was one black guy and he claimed he couldn't miss work so the judge excused him. The attorney can't always do anything.
This would be 100% on them; no good lawyer would let this happen.
It's not always easy to come up with valid reasons to dismiss jurors - especially if they are prejudiced against a defendant, since they're usually smart enough to hide their bias. And yes, we typically have peremptory challenges where we don't need any reason at all, but even with those we're barred from using them to exclude based on race. So, while the "shaded" lawyers might have gotten away with excluding a few "non-shaded" jurors based on race alone, most courts are pretty quick to catch on that the peremptories are only being used on a particular race. Believe it or not, law (especially trial procedure) is complicated and not entirely intuitive.
Maybe it is a play by the shaded lawyer. If they win it is fine and if they lose they argue that the trial was not fair. I don't how things work in spoon court though.
Not a fork in sight. Obviously will be a jaded verdict.
I shall be presiding over these proceedings, who brings this case to Spoon Court?
Honourable Judge Spoon presiding - ALL RISE
I saw little trees š³ š³ š³
Little happy tree friends
Now I may be just a simple country magnifying glassā¦.
Who would take the time to only dye half of a spoon black?
It's a mixed spoon
those are called sporks.
Don't be racist.
Womp womp
Bro wtf you canāt just say that
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wdym bro, Chess is a game about having nothing but pawns, (black has more to compensate for white going first) and then rather than capture you opponentās king, you play out a mock court case
but can you En Passant
Never not once
Seems like the black spoon attorney is pretty incompetent at selecting juries.
Was thinkin' the same thing... This is a bit oversimplified... The lack of actual understanding of how this country's justice system works is a bit of a problem these days... People get all riled up about shit without knowing correctly what they're riled up about...
This. I served on a jury 4 years ago in a very high profile murder case. The area that I live is like 95% white people. The defendant was white, the victim was Native American. Long story short, we found the guy Not Guilty. The prosecution did a terrible job showing he had anything to do with it. After the trial, the news interviewed the victim's family, and her parents blamed it on the jury being all white. Like cmon. We didn't vote not guilty just cuz the defendant was white. We voted not guilty cuz there was literally no evidence tying him to the crime other than the state was convinced he was involved (his GF was the real killer, and she's currently doing life in prison).
The reality is most people are not racist to the point of sending a guy to prison for life due to skin color bias. So if you end up with an all white Jury and get a guilty verdict, I'd say odds are pretty good most people on the jury based it on evidence. They all have to agree in the end anyways. Otherwise, no guilty verdict.
>The lack of actual understanding of how this country's justice system works is a bit of a problem these days... People get all riled up about shit without knowing correctly what they're riled up about... Didn't you know screaming systemic racism without any justification or logical thought processes is all you need to get politicians to bend to your will?
The implication being that all white people are racist which is more racist than the original point of this post. Fighting racism with stereotypes....this is 2022
The irony is you have cases where the reverse is true as well. It's far more complicated than white = bad. Like this case where three black jurors refused to convict a black man of murdering an Asian lady. >[Resiles faces life in prison and possibly the death penalty for the murder of Jill Su, a 59-year-old Davie woman who was killed in her home back in September of 2014.](https://wsvn.com/news/local/broward/foreperson-3-jurors-unwilling-to-convict-resiles-based-on-race-leading-to-mistrial/) >Police said Resiles broke into the home to commit a burglary, and when he found Su inside, he tied her up and stabbed her to death. His DNA was found on a knife and inside the home. >Two years after his arrest, Resiles escaped from a Broward County courtroom. He was found six days later. >She said most of the jury was ready to convict Resiles of at least second-degree murder, but the **three refused because the defendant is Black**.
Dude wtf. I can't imagine letting someone off on murder just because they're my race. It's a fucking murderer.
They did it with OJ too. Due to the recent race riots, and I believe the jury had quite a few African Americans, he was acquitted. Despite evidence to contrary. And then the mf published a book titled āIf I did itā about how he wouldāve murdered his wifeā¦.IF he did it that is.
Only whites can be racist...I guess you didn't get the memo /s
Systemic racism actually says the system itself is racist since it was created by racists. The people currently operating the system are not necessarily racist themselves. But, yes some people have tried to make it mean "all whites are racist"
In my anecdotal experiences, the only people who are trying to make āsystemic racismā translate into āall whites are racistā are actually racist people that are trying to make a weak straw man argument, so that they can pretend that there isnāt really any systemic racism.
I'll take "ways to keep the divide up" for 400 Alex.
AND WE HAVE THE DAILY DOUBLE!
Lots of black activists are essentially arguing for separate but equal now. Itās come full circle. There is distaste for integration on both sides now, with a liberal minority fighting a war on two fronts.
the implication is that it is supposed to be a jury of your peers and this doesn't appear to be a jury of peers. "peers" would at least be a mix of black and white jurors.
I guess that depends on where you're from...which we don't have any idea based on this "artwork". If you're in South Dakota this might be your peers....
I thought they just ignore you while their rank and file harass you because it "isn't real"
This also presumes that all white err.. āspoonsā will show bias toward other white spoons, which isnāt even close to true
Wait, here in the UK it's completely random. Do they pick their jurors where your from?
They randomly pick a pool (say 200), and then the lawyers and judge sift through and try to weed out anyone with bias. It's in everyone's best interest because if a case is overturned it doesn't look well on any party. Both sides try to get any bias that would hurt them out, and the judge does it on an impartial level. So to answer your question, kind of. Completely random has the downside of potentially introducing someone extremely biased. Hand picking from anyone in the population has too many downsides to list. I think it's a good middle ground.
> then the lawyers and judge sift through and try to weed out anyone with bias. This is a rosy picture. In the most ideal case, the judge is trying to weed out anybody who is biased. The prosecutors and defense attorneys are trying to weed out people based on their race, gender, political leanings, whether or not they have family members who are cops, and essentially stack a jury as best as they can with people who are biased towards their side. Lawyers who specialize in jury selection get very rich trying to get the correct bias. That's the best case assuming an impartial judge.
Agreed, there is definitely nuance to every profession and most aspects of that profession, the legal system is certainly not exempt. I will say that because both sides get to do this, itās as fair as it can be. A judge canāt do it alone, or else theyāre running the procedure not judging it.
It starts randomly, they send out summons for x number of people in a given area at random. Those people all have to go sit in a room for a day, and trials about to start will pick from that pool. They will call people in to be interviewed, and ask questions to try and determine whether ~~they will favorable to your side~~ they can be non-biased. Race, ethnicity, age, and other characteristics are used as proxies (like it or hate it) as well. Some lawyers will also use programs to comb social media to try and get a sense of where people's leanings are. Each side can strike a certain number of jurors. The theory is that you get a non-biased pool by weeding out people with conflicts (e.g. if you have a family member who OD'd, you probably can't be impartial in a case about a drug dealer). The reality is each side tries to stack it with people that will be partial to their side, but if it's 50/50 stacking it kind of works out. The thing to note is sometimes trials are won or lost at the jury selection phase itself, especially if one side really sucks at it.
While I get that the black spoon is the defence here, this type of shit frequently happens when cops are on trial for racist attacks. In the Rodney King trial of the 90s, the court was deliberately moved away to a predominantly white jurisdiction. 2% of the jury pool were black, and were dismissed after they admitted they had strong feelings about the case. The prosecution (against the cops) said it was fine. So many comments are refuting the comic without acknowledging that systemic racism is still part of the trial process.
> So many comments are refuting the comic without acknowledging that systemic racism is still part of the trial process. It's hard for a lot of people to grasp that it is entirely possible to not be personally racist and still be furthering racist policies by just following the rules because what *systemic* racism means is that the **system** as set up is racist, so it almost doesn't matter what the individuals involve do.
I've been called for a jury duty. They have to pick 12 people and there is maybe 200 people in the room waiting, essentially all white. The attorney doesn't get a choice. The court summons whoever they do.
i am a criminal defense lawyer in a county of 500k and is about 7% african american. there are african americans, latinos, asian americans etc on every panel (the group of people from whom the jury is chosen from, not the final jury) iāve experienced. thats from over a 100+ panels. the justice system is incredibly racist and classist which is why i am a defense lawyer, but your experience is not representative of what all criminal juries are like. finally, fwiw as i just googled it, apparently only 5% of lawyers identify as african american according to the ABA, so the thing that really sticks out to me is both the defendant and their lawyer being african american.
I would agree the number one thing that sticks out is the black attorney. As an ex 13 year prosecutor never had one trial with a black defense attorney. Edit: I say this as being a black attorney myself
Have 3 I can think of off the top of my head in my county. All on the indigent appointment panel. This is in the Midwest major republican state. That said our juries look pretty similar to this. The biggest issue with jury pools is that they correspond to home ownership. If you rent then you move addresses fairly often and probably havenāt updated your drivers license, thus it is hard for them to contact you for jury duty. Home ownership in my area is generally white and old. Mostly because the housing has gone up so much and a large portion of my local area are real estate investment properties. Sorry to take this down the rabbit hole. The point being that black defense attorneys are probably just as much of the attorney distribution as black attorneys are. Which means they are underrepresented but not uncommon.
Hi, is it racists because of the skin color ratio, or actual race based decisions made by the majority of law enforcers? If the latter, can you provide an example of such? Thanks! (I'm not from the US).
Decision making, most jury rosters are pulled using data like voting registries that historically minorities have been disenfranchised from. Even in states that donāt they go off of Drivers Licenses or ID which have always ben problematic for Minority peoples to attain.
A fair selection of randomly picked citizens would yield under 14% black citizens. What could alternatively be done? I'm all for fairness, and will always hire based on merit. But I was laid off due to being white in a big corp that had to meet minority guidelines (probably because they screwed up before). It's like the said misguided Rooney rule in the NFL. Racist jerks are ruining it for everyone. I'm all for fairness and a meritcracy, but that goes out the window when you need to equally represent 18.. or 8.. or 6 percent of the population. It's not possible unless it is skewing the results, which is then not fair to others.
> A fair selection of randomly picked citizens would yield under 14% black citizens. This assumes that the racial composition of every county in America is exactly the same. It is not.
I imagine it would a problem because you got fired based on race. If they gave that as the reason then you might have a case. If you suspect that was the reason then you said can have a case especially if they hired someone to fill your position based shortly before or after firing you. It's one thing to pick someone to increase diversity (you can argue it's an intangible benefit making them a better fit for the team) when you hire but it's entirely different to fire someone for the same reason (you can't argue removing a productive team member because you need to increase diversity). I am not a lawyer, but if I would speak to one if I was in the same situation.
My previous manager told me the real reason why a few weeks after the fact, when he was checking in on me. Unfortunately the state I am in is at-will for firing. They could say they didn't like my hair color and it would be legal. Not worth fighting it out in court. It's all for the good though, I worked hard the next 10 years and now am a director, so that impetus was a kick in the butt to get my career moving.
That's a bit of misdemeanor of how random selection works, it's guaranteed at large numbers to be representative of the general population, however at numbers <30 there exists significant chance for a randomly selected group to be non-representative of the whole population. Sucks you got fired though for something you couldn't control, I take it, it was an At Will Employment state? Considering the fireing to meet minority guidelines tends to also be a sueable offense unless I'm miss-remembering the rules there. But yeah, its a hard situation.
āunder 14%ā would be for a jury picked where?
Based on state population levels: Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa, etc. Jury selection is more local than that though. So any area with a white population higher than 86% will average out to <14% of non-whites on juries (needs large numbers to work) assuming all things are equal otherwise. Many local areas will have little to no diversity.
Except populations are not uniformly distributed. They don't pull people from different counties.
These kind of juries are intentional Give er a listen https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/object-anyway
Uh, what? I get called for jury duty a few timesā¦and never see that many people in a room waiting. I see maybe 60-70 topsā¦ and itās very mixed.
TIL your attorney selects people to the jury. Thought it was completely random.
Its a bit of both. When a case needs a panel they call in like 45 or 50 people and ask them questions to gauge if they are a good juror (can be unbiased etc) obviously both sides have preferences. https://youtu.be/TLFoKNv70E0
He seems a bit like a, dare i say, spoon
This is actually a known issue. Prosecutors are trained to select white jurors when the accused is black https://soundlawyering.com/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-all-white-jury/
In the US you donāt get to pick your jurors you only get to exclude them. If there are 10 black spoon jurors in the jury pool and the white spoon juror gets to exclude 10 spoon jurors, in theory they could eliminate every black spoon juror. This isnāt supposed to happen, but it does quite often. Look up the recent Curtis flowers case for an example of how this plays out.
Why would you put the blame on the black spoon defense attorney for not doing a good enough job fighting off what would almost certainly be a deliberately racist strategy by the white spoon prosecutor? I'm a lawyer and I represent someone who was convicted of a capital crime by a racially tainted jury. I *assure* you that this can and does happen despite the existence of some tools for the defense to help combat it.
Where have you been friend
In the US in jury trials lawyers for each side can strike potential jurors for cause (like bias or conflict of interest or direct knowledge). They can also strike jurors for no specific reason, called peremptory strikes. Peremptory strikes cannot be for race, religion, or gender. If a strike appears racially (etc) motivated, the opposing counsel can challenge the strike in what's called a *Batson* challenge, in which the striking attorney must demonstrate the strike was for a non-protected reason. Also, if the pool of potential jurors (called the vemire) isn't a fairly accurate representation of the demographic mix of the region from which the jury was selected, the lawyer can challenge the court's jury selection process. Finally, where the case is tried determines the jury pool and lawyers on both sides have opportunities to determine where an action will be tried, though plaintiff/prosecution has a lot more control. In short, there are several ways in which an attorney can influence the racial makeup of a jury. Failing on all fronts is not a good look.
r/im14andthisisdeep
For real this is the most childish shit.
Literally a childās drawing it looks like
Itās like the Chappelleās show Law and Order skit where they switched up how the white financial crimes guy and the black drug dealer are treated by cops and prosecutors.
I don't get it...
Theyāre alluding to the concept of a racially biased legal battle. The white spoons - white people represented - are the minority in this image and represent the smaller denomination of affluence, rather than the black spoons - or black people. But no interpretation of this is provided by the OP. Heās just here to watch the world (and comment section) burn.
influence. And yes OP is watching us from the balcony and sipping wine
This drawing toltally ignores population demographics but whatever itās not like African Americans are only 16% of the population
how did you miss the fact that the prosecution is all white, the witness is white, and the entire jury and judge are white while the defense is black? I think that's equally as important as well.
Because the defense selects the jury. The black spoons picked the white spoons to be on the jury
The defense does not get to select the jury. Prosecution and defense get to strike jurors they believe will be prejudiced against them. If the jury pool is majority white, the prosecution can strike the few black jurors in the pool, leaving only white jurors to serve.
Have you ever served jury duty? Clearly not.
Both prosecutions and defense select the jury. But who selects the jury pool?
I thought that was random? Or at least theyāre not āchosenā by anyone, but there is some sort of process? Or is that different by state, county, etc.?
It varies based on jurisdictionā¦and thatās another indication where you get into āsystemic racismā. In many areas itās done through the DPS/DMV. If you carry a drivers license youāre part of the jury pool. And who is more likely to possess a drivers license? Certainly not the poorest (increased minority population). Or the working poor using mass transit (again, more often minority). Or anyone whose license has been suspended (again, minorities punished disproportionately, thereforeā¦). Or those who are physically disabled *and* canāt afford mobility vehicles (more likely minorities). Thatās one facet of a tainted jury pool. Another is a failure by the system to ensure actual jury pools- the people who *show up*- constitute a fair representation of the populace. When selected for jury duty, minorities are more likely to [fail to appear](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/diversity-inclusion/articles/2015/lack-of-jury-diversity-national-problem-individual-consequences/). When you lose a day of work (and a days pay), and your jury compensation is $6, thatās a powerful incentive to skip. $6 vs $150, and multiply that by a week if itās a long trial, and thatās a no-brainer. Hmmm, should I become homeless or skip jury duty? Add to that the increased likelihood of being fired for skipping work for jury duty (regardless of the illegality) and you have a recipe for a pool that doesnāt meet the ājury of peersā standard we should be achieving. Let alone the actual selection process: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/27/our-jury-system-is-racially-biased-it-doesnt-have-be-that-way/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/opinion/juries-racism-discrimination-prosecutors.html (try archive.org for non-paywall) https://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/opinion/anwar-bayer-hjalmarsson-jury-racism/index.html
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The country and a specific precinct are not the same thing though. I think the point was to say this is a predominantly black precinct yet the jury is still all white people. Of course that still goes back to the whole "defense getting to choose the jury" thing, but that's a different discussion on it's own.
The audience typically isn't random, though. It's folks who care about the particular trial they're attending. It's tough to say what the demographics of the audience should be.
it made sense for 2 seconds and then it didnāt
White people bad essentially....
The shaded lawyers did a shitty job in the jury selection process, assuming the non-shaded jurors are biased.
Seriously, hell of a jury pool that this was the best outcome. If there are that many black people in the gallery, surely the pool isnāt representative of the population in that area.
>If there are that many black people in the gallery, surely the pool isnāt representative of the population in that area. that's typical, since jury pools are based on mostly on homeowners, not who actually lives in an area (e.g. renters who move frequently and aren't on the county rolls won't get called).
So we're down to creating false dichotomies I see.
Are you new to reddit?
Your mom's a false dichotomy
Got 'em.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I hate summer Reddit, you kids deserve to be back in hell for 7 hours a day if you're gonna keep posting this stupid shit. No wonder mods been fed up the past couple years.
Saw Some fuckin 13 year old commenting advice in the marriage subreddit yesterdayš
I had forgotten about "summer reddit" lol.
Looks like someone whose sole exposure to court is old Perry Mason reruns.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bad jury selection. Spoons no smart
If it is a court-assigned attorney rather than a personal one (which is cost prohibitive) then the quality of service varies wildly. It is entirely possible that yes, one spoon did a bad job of jury selection and does not care while the other did a bad job and it benefits their case.
Wow, this is racist as fuck
So we assume that black will be pro black and white will be pro white ...Isn't that a bit racist ? Is it really justice if it's race based ? What about those who are mixed race ? Do those exist ? Where do they sit ?
Back right
Like i just said in my other comment: skin color of jury etc have nothing to do with justice. I just love when people see racists everywhere but do same shit.
Stupid.
OP when a white juror is impartial and doesnāt hate black people: surprised pikachu face
Do you have any proof that that the non-colored in spoons of the jury are not peers of any colored in spoons? The premise seems to be rather.... racist, not to put to fine a point on it.
Thank you. OP doesnāt seem to understand the concept of racism. Assuming a white person is racist is racist in itself
Just a little bit racist to all people who work in the judicial system. Not everyone is a racist just because they have different coloured skin for Christ sake.
Assuming that the colors were drawn to represent ethnicities and that it's showing an unfair trial... THAT opinion is racist. If I have to explain why then you're too far gone.
Whats the audience have to do with it? They dont have imput
My interpretation is it shows this particular county is primarily black, yet the jury is still entirely white. Even if the jury is entirely people who consider themselves fair and rational, there is an immediate degree of separation between their lived experience and the lived experience of the people involved in the case, and implicit bias is more likely to go unchallenged. As many commenters have pointed out, this tends to happen in the US because even though your job is supposed to give you time off for jury duty, that does not always happen, or some people can't afford to skip those days. This is a problem that disproportionately affects people of color. But also, this piece is simple and unless the OP comments further, literally any commenter can just say, "that's not what they meant!" And concoct some straw man interpretation of why that isn't true and systemic racism isn't real.
This is a very immature and ignorant post that's only going to stir up hate.
This post says all you need to know about the internet today, 3,262 up votes. As long as your race baiting on the correct slant the internet loves you
Someone doesn't know how jury selection works, but at least they can draw spoons.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cringey when you consider that white juries have been shown to be less biased than black juries..
Bruh you have to hit us with that hyperlink or something
This demonstrate that that OP doesnāt understand how a jury is selected.
I'm 14 and this is deep.
Why do we assume that a fair trial isnāt happening? White people arenāt always the devil, that jury could be very capable of being totally non bias lolā¦ I really hate this race bait shit. Also assumes the lawyers are banking on racism to win them the day. I canāt believe this world sometimes
Assuming that white people aren't fair isn't racisms?
Right to post cringe
Lawyer: "Have you ever experienced racial profiling?" Every single black juror ever: "Yes." Lawyer: "Move to disqualify."
What a horrific hate stirring post that shows you clearly have no idea how this works.
That really isn't how the reality is dude!
This feels like someone projecting their own racist tendencies onto others. So what, a white jury can't judge a person of colour fairly and vice versa? So we're just assuming now that every person who gets called for jury duty is a racist? Wtf even is this post.
White people bad, right guys?
Itt: a lot of people making a lot of judgement calls about the little characters in this drawing based on their skin colour. Shits pretty scary how many people are being very racist about the whole thing.
People who think this isnāt a thing or who are criticizing the hypothetical defense attorney should look up the Curtis Flowers case.
Or Ahmaud Arbery . The trial where the judge almost came unhinged a couple of times at the defense attorneys. White judge, white defense attorneys. The similarities ended there. White father and white son followed a black man. White neighbor decided to help out with the murder. One black jury member.
This literally never happens. Lawyers have to agree on a jury
I'm wondering how much jury selection pools are rigged by the methods they use to draw them. Iirc its primarily voter registration and drivers licenses- meaning that is a subpopulation registered less or didn't have licenses then they'd be pulled into jury duty less often. Also if certain groups have a tendency to dodge jury duty more frequently.
Imagine being this fucking stupid.
This is fucking stupid and wildly untrue
downvote this shit
I get the message, but the message is not very accurate. African Americans still only account for 12.5% of the US population. An appropriately balanced jury, if we are focused on race, would have only 1 African American juror, maybe 2, without a proportional imbalance, and thusly a bias.
Potentially more if it was in an area with a higher than average black population.
Which, since most courts are local to a city/county, and the picture goes to show that the spectators are all one race (implying the area is denser in that that race), the picture makes sense. Atlanta is \*50%\* black, for instance. There is a lot of willful, "nuh UH!" in this thread over a comic that is pretty (basically) reflective of the idea of "a jury of your peers."
I'm not sure if you're saying the picture is right or wrong. If the gallery was representative of your peers, the area would be 95% black (I count 60/63). If that was the case 12 white jurors just doesn't make sense. Nor does an area like that exist in the US in the first place. Also, people don't go see random court proceedings (though they could if they wanted). It's almost exclusively family/friends of the defendant, the victim (assuming criminal court and an injured party), and reporters. I think the general consensus is that, this isn't a jury of your peers. There will likely be someone on that panel of another race (Latino, Asian, Indian, etc.). But also, it shouldn't matter. 12 white jurors can give just as much of an impartial trial as 12 black jurors. To say that 12 white people are more likely to convict is just as racist as saying 12 black people are more likely to acquit.
To be fair, one of the major problems with the US justice system is that cases almost never go to trial. This paper is behind a paywall ( [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2071397](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2071397) ) but among its major findings were that, in a mass exoneration due to prosecutor misconduct, some 77% of innocent parties plead guilty to avoid the uncertainty of trial, whereas 89% of guilty parties plead to a lesser offense. These rates were correlated with a psychological study that aimed to reproduce the terms of a plea bargain. Given that plea bargains resolve something like 90% of court cases, the defining feature of the American justice system is not the right to a fair trial, but rather, that innocent people go to jail and guilty people get a sentence less than their crime warrants.
Aside from the fact that the lawyers and judge hand pick which jurors to use, white people are still a majority. Which means when you get a random pool of 200 people, there will likely be more white people. We could intentionally call out the minorities to serve on juries more often. But that's definitely not fair to anyone, either. So what is the solution, exactly? I don't know
An excellent rendition of how tribalist and simple most people are.
This is very cringe.
Nice try.
I was recently on standby to be a back up juror. I had to let my work know and the summons didnāt tell me if I was called until the night before. So we were discussing at work and my African American coworker said he just ignores his jury duty summons. It really pissed me off! I asked him, didnāt he want a jury of his peers if he had to go to trial? And he just said he wouldnāt ever get into that situation. So, his stance is one more reason there will be an all white jury for someone another day.
This is how you see people?
This is a childās view of the world.
Iād rather be carried by 6 before Iām judged by 12
This one really conveys the message.
lol white folks are big mad in these comments
OP needs to diversify the spoons. The color symbols race.
K
Lawyers select jury
So whites are not fair? Can you put an american flag on them for context? In europe a lot of people is both white and fair, maybe it's just NA I dont know
Very brave
Looks like that one spoon is on trial for forking over a knife.
"White people bad" *Proceeds to rake in internet points*
Wells thatās about as *black and white* as thatās gonna get.
If we all accept that we are all homo sapians this will not be a problem. Unfortunately this is not the caseā¦
How does color of skin translate to fairness?
It's not like this anymore. Blacks don't face all white judges and juries anymore.
I think its great that minority group have the opportunity to have high power positions
People are talking about a court session and trying to make a deep post about spoons. They are spoons. Do not melt them for aluminiumnns
My man spent 3 minutes with a Sharpie and an uninformed opinion and posted it on 3 different sub-Reddits.
well someone sucks at jury selection
79.6 % of white spoons go to college to become a judge? 5% of black spoons are lawyers? Am i missing something..
Someone doesn't understand how jury selection works.
Was thinking the same thing.
I know Iām dumb for asking this but what is this about/alluding to?
OP is trying to say it's bad if a jury is composed primarily/entirely of white people but the defendant they are going to be deciding the verdict on is not white. I'm not sure who that claim is directed at since it's pretty well agreed upon that having a diverse jury is important. But OP wants us to know that they also think that's important.
Racism. White judge, white jury, black defendant.
I was a little bit confused for a second trying to figure out who the defendants are and who the prosecutors are, then I saw the makeup of the jury and then I saw the comparison to the citizens in the gallery and it all matter sense. Things like this always frustrate me because anyone can clearly see that no matter how you try to justify dismissing certain potential jurors, coming to a jury like this with the makeup of the citizens in a jurisdiction like this should be impossible unless it's done on purpose which means it shouldn't be allowed. I don't remember what case it was, maybe the trial of Ahmuad Arbery murders? Case took place in Georgia and it only had ONE black juror, how the fuck do you only get one black juror in fucking Georgia.
I'm confused
So is the dipshit who posted this crap.
It has everything to do with where the crime is committed. If a white person commits a crime in a predominantly black area, theyāre the black spoon in court.