Is the jury rigged if it is more likely to find someone guilty or is it rigged if it's more likely to find someone innocent?
From all the stories I see from the leftist media, it's a zero sum game and only one of those options is available.
Race permeates everything. So does gender. That's what we're told. So are we looking for a jury of peers for the accused or for the victim? Well, obviously when the accused is white and the victim is black we need a jury that represents the victim. When it's the other way around the jury must look more like the accused.
In the Arbery case we see a big deal about not enough black people being on the jury. There are 12 people and 1 is black. That's about 8.3 percent. Blacks are about 14% of the population nationally, apparently. If there were 2 blacks on the jury then that's about 16.7 percent, and if 1 is not enough then we need at least 2 to have a fair trial but isn't that over-representation then? No, because the county is 27% black.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052435205/ahmaud-arbery-jury"A Duke University-led study of a decade of criminal convictions in Florida, for example, found that all-white jury pools convicted Black defendants 16% more often than white defendants. But when even just one Black person was added to the jury pool, the gap in conviction rates nearly disappeared.
Angie Setzer, a senior attorney for the Equal Justice Initiative, told NPR that diverse juries are more likely to discuss ideas that an all-white jury might overlook, such as racial profiling.
"Studies have shown that racially representative juries engage in a more thoughtful and deliberative fact-finding process," Setzer said. "Studies have shown that racially representative juries are also better able to assess the reliability and credibility of witness testimony."
The jury in the recent criminal case against Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd, was even more racially diverse than the county where the trial took place. Chauvin was convicted and sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison."
------------------------------------
Wow. So we basically get an outright admission that juries are racist. Well if they are racist should that benefit or hurt the defendant?
The story tells you. If the defendant is white the jury should be picked that will be more likely to convict and if the defendant is black the jury should be picked that is more likely to acquit. If that's justice in America, then the system is broken.
It seems like it's a brag that Chauvin was convicted by a jury more diverse than the trial county and the implication is that played a role in his conviction. So objectively, is he guilty or not guilty? No way to know. It all depends on the jury and that greatly depends on their race. If it had been an all white jury would he still have been convicted? The left says it's less likely and then they turn around and say it's good that he was convicted based on race, both his race as well as that of the jurors. When we're being told that an all white jury would have been less likely to convict a guy with the exact same evidence, something just isn't adding up. Same thing for the Arbery case.
Same thing for Zimmerman. What if he'd had an all black jury? And why shouldn't he? They're all still his peers right? Why couldn't all of the qualified black people in the jury pool serve on the jury? And what if they had convicted him based on the same evidence the jury he had saw? Would that have been justice? The left seems to think so.
When the left admits that race makes a difference, not only admits it but insists on it, they don't seem to stop to think about all of the ramifications.
One implication is that if having a jury of all one race is grossly unjust then how is it not at least somewhat unjust to have some of the jurors be a different race? Is a somewhat unjust decision okay then?
