That's true. It's a much older right than the Constitution.
Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
That's true. It's a much older right than the Constitution.
I'd say no. I'm not sure who they would be, but it would be prejudicial to include them. The whole point is that they're impartial to the case.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if i'm a black man, is a white man my peer?
who isn't my peer?
the rules are written the same for both sides
Yes.
The king?
A panel of people specifically chosen for some attribute that you may or may not share.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
wait - if race doesn't matter when defining someone as a peer, why does it matter to you if a black man is tried by an all white jury?
they're all his peers, right? (as long as they're not kings)
genuineoriginal
New member
In English Law, the jury was drawn from one's peers so the nobility could not be judged by the commoners.
A jury of one's peers therefore implies a jury from the same class of people as yourself.
In American Law, there is no class system, so everyone is considered to be of the same class, supposedly making everyone a peer of everyone else, which is why the Constitution did not provide for a jury of your peers.
Juries are comprised of your peers. Not sure what else there is to say.
And all-white jury is fine, if it comes about randomly. It's not fine to allow the prosecutor to toss jurors for no reason but race.
What threatens the principle of a jury of peers is if you empower the state, i.e. the prosecutor, to select the panel.
genuineoriginal
New member
My point is that the concept of peers from English Law does not apply to American Law.
Do you think both ok doser and rexlunae are your peers?
Would you want both ok doser and rexlunae on the same jury at your trial?
genuineoriginal
New member
A random jury is not an impartial one, which is why there is a jury selection process to remove people that are not impartial.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why not?
why isn't one peer the same as another, regardless of their skin color?
ok, so you're not discussing the amercian system, where the defense gets the same number of peremptory challenges?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:devil:
The important thing, in American law, is that the panel of jurors be broadly representative of the public in general. A panel selected by either side or both in concert is generally less representative that it would be if selected at random.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html
"The very idea of a jury is a body . . . composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds." Strauder, supra, at 308;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/79.html
Right. There are certain people who shouldn't be on a jury, either in a particular case, or in general. That's why I'm only asking to remove peremptory challenges. Challenges for cause would still be allowed.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i have no equals :banana:
This is the American system. See the links I posted for GO.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
would statistics that show racial bias qualify for cause?
You have plenty of equals. There's resurrected, koban, some other dude, resodko.
Now that's prejudice.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the defense gets the same number of peremptory challenges as the prosecution, right?