Should jury selection be blind/anonymous?

[DMT]

If there is a legal reason to disqualify someone isnt it the lawyers prerogative and possible their job to actually disqualify the person.

Edit to add: It may also me more about the legal reason to disqualify than it is about the color of their skin.

And racism may just be a figment of minorities' imaginations. Sorry, I get your point that there are some times valid reasons but gimme a break if you don't think prosecutors try to rid juries of POC simply because of their race if the defendant is also a POC.

[B-Fly]

If there is a legal reason to disqualify someone isnt it the lawyers prerogative and possible their job to actually disqualify the person.

Edit to add: It may also me more about the legal reason to disqualify than it is about the color of their skin.

I honestly don't think so based on both data and observation. I think it is overwhelmingly about the color of their skin, but the system makes it too hard to prove in any individual trial. Which is why I would support blind jury selection.

[baldgriff]

And racism may just be a figment of minorities' imaginations. Sorry, I get your point that there are some times valid reasons but gimme a break if you don't think prosecutors try to rid juries of POC simply because of their race if the defendant is also a POC.

I cant deny that it would be possible that an attorney will make decisions in that manner. Certainly it is possible. While that is an unfortunate truth, but again if there is a legal reason to disqualify an individual that is acceptable to the courts - then the law is not taking the color of the skin into consideration - it is taking into consideration the actual reason to disqualify.

[OaklandA's]

While that is an unfortunate truth, but again if there is a legal reason to disqualify an individual that is acceptable to the courts - then the law is not taking the color of the skin into consideration - it is taking into consideration the actual reason to disqualify.

Lawyers can remove potential jurors "for cause" if there is a reason to question their ability to reach a fair verdict. But lawyers also get a small number of "peremptory challenges", where they can dismiss a small number of potential jurors without stating a reason. The peremptory challenges are the ones where race might be the primary factor.

[baldgriff]

Lawyers can remove potential jurors "for cause" if there is a reason to question their ability to reach a fair verdict. But lawyers also get a small number of "peremptory challenges", where they can dismiss a small number of potential jurors without stating a reason. The peremptory challenges are the ones where race might be the primary factor.

So then if this is an actual concern - then change the process and get rid of peremptory challenges.

Ive never sat on a jury, sat outside the courtroom a couple times waiting to be interviewed. Ultimately, in my mind, if the law has allowed for peremptory challenges - then any reason can be used. Its legal - and I would assume the case law on it is settled. Otherwise, if one feels the need, take up the charge for everyone concerned and have the system changed.

The Defense and Prosecutor have the right to see and make decisions about the jurors that they are interviewing. Let's say for sake of arguement that one of the jurors lost a leg to diabetes that was left unfound or untreated to negligence. If you dont see the juror, that may be a piece of information that could be pertinent to whether you want to keep or dismiss the juror. Hell wearing glasses in a case against an optometrist would be good to know.

There is just way to much information - other than just one's skin tone that is pertinent to whether someone would be a good juror for a given case. All of the variables need to be seen and observed.

[Redbirds Fan]

You guys need to take a look at Batson v. Kentucky and the cases which have followed it over the last 30+ years dealing with race and peremptory challenges (or at least the an online article about it). I actually argued a Batson case before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals about 28 years ago.

[TranaGreg]

The Defense and Prosecutor have the right to see and make decisions about the jurors that they are interviewing. Let's say for sake of arguement that one of the jurors lost a leg to diabetes that was left unfound or untreated to negligence. If you dont see the juror, that may be a piece of information that could be pertinent to whether you want to keep or dismiss the juror. Hell wearing glasses in a case against an optometrist would be good to know.

any lawyer would be able to identify potential biases like the ones you're referring to by asking relevant questions & assessing the answers given - this is the whole purpose of that part of the process (it's called voir dire, at least up here). I trust this way more than someone's visual review of a person.

[TranaGreg]

You guys need to take a look at Batson v. Kentucky and the cases which have followed it over the last 30+ years dealing with race and peremptory challenges (or at least the an online article about it). I actually argued a Batson case before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals about 28 years ago.

good to see that the process has something to address that

[B-Fly]

good to see that the process has something to address that

Yes, Batson is great in spirit and intent, but as the article I initially linked notes, incredibly difficult to apply.

[baldgriff]

any lawyer would be able to identify potential biases like the ones you're referring to by asking relevant questions & assessing the answers given - this is the whole purpose of that part of the process (it's called voir dire, at least up here). I trust this way more than someone's visual review of a person.

Without the non-verbals - you just dont get the same kind of communication or interaction. Non-verbals make up a large percentage of the communications we have and should not be dismissed. Much of what you are using to make your assessments are the non-verbals that are attached to the words. Things like posture, inflection, eye contact, open or closed positions..... all of these are integral pieces to the communication process and are also greatly relied upon when we make our decisions about what someone is saying. Words are just that - its all of the other context around the words that makes what someone is saying believable or not.