The racial make-up of juries is crucial to the maintenance of justice in our country. Jury composition has wide scale implications in the convictions of the accused. Up to this point I have discussed jury composition in regards to all-white juries only, however it is important that juries are equal in all regards. For instance, in the O.J. Simpson trial the jury was composed of 9 blacks, 2 whites, and one hispanic. 10 of the jurors were women. Although it is impossible to say to what extent the composition of jury had on the outcome of the trial, it would be illogical to dismiss it.
In the case of Orenthall James Simpson, the composition of his jury was such that he most likely benefitted from the jury. For others, this is not the case. Tyrone Peter Darks was convicted in the State of Oklahoma by an all-white jury notwithstanding a lack of evidence and sentenced to receive the death penalty. The implications of jury composition plays a critical part in the probability of a successful conviction. In the same light, it can also be to the defense's advantage to manipulate the jury in its favor as well, creating all-white juries, as is the case in an Alabama trial against two Klu Klux Klan members.
In 1955, Emmett Till was brutally murdered by Roy Bryant and his half brother, J.W. Milam for whistling at a white girl. Considering this to be unacceptable behavior, Bryant and Milam kidnapped Till and beat him to death. His body was later found in a stream. An all-white jury acquitted Bryant and his brother in just 67 minutes of deliberation - the 67 minutes was simply to "make it look good". Bryant and Milam later bragged about committing the murder, but because of double jeopardy, they couldn't be tried for the crime again. The racist all-white jury allowed two blatantly guilty men to get away with brutally beating up a 14 year old boy. But as significant as this is (and a huge implication of jury composition in itself), the civil rights movement which was spawned as a result of this (and thus indirectly jury composition) was epic.
The implications of the jury composition were great enough to encourage a Civil Rights movement, in the face of a horrible tragedy. But a movement of that magnitude should not be required to attain justice. The justice system should inherently be efficient without the protesting of thousands of people. There needs to be a standard in our juries - there needs to be a set number of minorities, as well as a variety of political ideologies and religious beliefs. There needs to be consensus across a diverse group of people, and until that happens, there will continue to be wrongful convictions as well as murderers roaming free
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hey... really nice argument there. But, when you propose making sure that juries need to have "a variety of political ideologies and religious beliefs", does this mean that people with extremists views like 'terrorists' or even environmental fundamentalists should be represented? Because some can justly argue that supporters for Sadam Hussien should be allowed to be part of the jury if such a trial existed, for example. I know that this is most likely not what you mean, but I think by acknowledging the difficulty in defining the criteria set for the members in a jury, the difficulty and almost impossibility in having equal representation is truly highlighted. Just something you might want to think about when proposing changes to the system. Good job!
You do a good job of explaining the problems of jury selection. You also give a number of examples displaying the relationship between the types of people on the jury, the defendant, and the outcome of the trial. One thing you could define more clearly is the idea behind the need for a more diverse jury. For example, you could mention in the promise of a "jury of your peers" and how that is not being met. Also, you could examine the difficulties of truly obtaining a diverse jury. It is hard to get a mix of everyone in a jury, but that there needs to be some diversity for a fair trial.
You did such a good job presenting the argument in this post. The examples were perfect and easily lead the reader throughout the post. I agree with everything you say...almost. In the very last sentence, you say that there needs to be a set number as a limit to the number of minorities that can be in a jusy. Isn't this backwards to American values? Isn't the point of American law and justice is that everyone is equal under the law? Why then would it be consider acceptable to treat say African Americans any differently and limit the number of them that can be in the jury box? If we as Americans value equality under the law for everyone, then there can be no limits of the number of minorities in the jury because they are simply American citizens with a different color skin.
I love this argument! I think you do a great job of presenting the problem and I really understand the issue more clearly. I agree that there should be a variety of ideas and beliefs which make up the jury, but I also agree with allison in that there shouldn't be discrimination against minorities. Isn't that something we're trying to eliminate in the first place?
This was a very interesting argument to read, your use of individual cases made it a lot more interesting than if you had explained the overall broad issues of biased jury selection. I found it very insightful and informative and I was motivated to further research similar cases. I agree with you when you said that it shouldn't be necessary for judicial change to be prompted by giant reactions, we shouldn't have to even deal with issues such as racial inequalities in our court systems. Sadly, the court system is made up of people and many people are scared of those different from themselves.
Post a Comment