Post by sclcookie on May 29, 2006 1:18:51 GMT -5
Racial bias in juries confirmed
Racial disparity in the court system has been a problem for many years.
From arrest, to trial, to sentencing, many African-Americans are all too
aware of the legal system's injustices. Others, however, have failed to
acknowledge them. Now, there is solid proof that racial biases can affect
a key component of the justice process: the jury. Recent research shows
that all-white juries can be, and often are, biased, when deciding the
fate of a black defendant. Perhaps this 'new' evidence can pave the way to
change, ensuring juries are diverse and fair.
A study published in the recent issue of the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology reveals that diverse juries, especially those that have
both black and white jurists, are more likely to hand down a fair verdict
than an all white jury is.
50 % of the study's participants on the all-white mock juries thought a
defendant was guilty - even before deliberations. On the diverse jury,
only 34 % of whites had made up their minds before reviewing the case with
their peers. Researchers aren't exactly sure why whites on the diverse
jury were more open-minded, but experts say that working with minorities
may have compelled the whites to hide any racial biases they may have. The
experts also believe that whites are more likely to review the case more
thoroughly when there are minorities on the jury.
In other words, white folks will 'act right' when they're around black (or
Latino) folks.
It is a fact that some prosecutors intentionally try to bump black jurors
from cases involving black defendants, especially for death penalty cases.
Polls reveals that fewer blacks support the death penalty than whites and
other data shows that white jurors are more likely to believe the
testimony of the police and the prosecutions witnesses than the word of
the black defendant. In short, the prosecution stacks the jury in their
favor. The defendant has no chance of a fair trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has voted down the practice of disqualifying jurors
based on race and has, more than once, cited the need for jury diversity.
The court, however, hasnt made clear just how 'diverse' a jury should be
and hasn't offered any advice on how diversity can be obtained. It is
still up to the defense attorney to prove that, based on a community's
demographics, whites are over represented on a particular jury. The
defense must also prove that a jury pool's lack of diversity is a result
of the prosecutions deliberate efforts. This is time consuming and, more
often than not, difficult to prove.
While the Court's decision is a step in the right direction, more needs to
be done. Federal guidelines need to be set, guaranteeing that a defendant
of color, living in a diverse area, will have a jury that is
representative of that community. A black defendant in New York, Chicago,
Detroit or Los Angeles should be able to expect that at least one of his
jurors will be of color. There are too many recent trials where this has
not been the case. Though the defendant could still be found guilty, there
would be at least 1 unbiased voice on the jury. The Court has taken the
1st step; now the federal government must follow suit, by passing
legislation that ensures the term "equal justice" actually means
something.<>P> (source: Chicago Defender - Judge Greg Mathis is national
vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference)
Racial disparity in the court system has been a problem for many years.
From arrest, to trial, to sentencing, many African-Americans are all too
aware of the legal system's injustices. Others, however, have failed to
acknowledge them. Now, there is solid proof that racial biases can affect
a key component of the justice process: the jury. Recent research shows
that all-white juries can be, and often are, biased, when deciding the
fate of a black defendant. Perhaps this 'new' evidence can pave the way to
change, ensuring juries are diverse and fair.
A study published in the recent issue of the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology reveals that diverse juries, especially those that have
both black and white jurists, are more likely to hand down a fair verdict
than an all white jury is.
50 % of the study's participants on the all-white mock juries thought a
defendant was guilty - even before deliberations. On the diverse jury,
only 34 % of whites had made up their minds before reviewing the case with
their peers. Researchers aren't exactly sure why whites on the diverse
jury were more open-minded, but experts say that working with minorities
may have compelled the whites to hide any racial biases they may have. The
experts also believe that whites are more likely to review the case more
thoroughly when there are minorities on the jury.
In other words, white folks will 'act right' when they're around black (or
Latino) folks.
It is a fact that some prosecutors intentionally try to bump black jurors
from cases involving black defendants, especially for death penalty cases.
Polls reveals that fewer blacks support the death penalty than whites and
other data shows that white jurors are more likely to believe the
testimony of the police and the prosecutions witnesses than the word of
the black defendant. In short, the prosecution stacks the jury in their
favor. The defendant has no chance of a fair trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has voted down the practice of disqualifying jurors
based on race and has, more than once, cited the need for jury diversity.
The court, however, hasnt made clear just how 'diverse' a jury should be
and hasn't offered any advice on how diversity can be obtained. It is
still up to the defense attorney to prove that, based on a community's
demographics, whites are over represented on a particular jury. The
defense must also prove that a jury pool's lack of diversity is a result
of the prosecutions deliberate efforts. This is time consuming and, more
often than not, difficult to prove.
While the Court's decision is a step in the right direction, more needs to
be done. Federal guidelines need to be set, guaranteeing that a defendant
of color, living in a diverse area, will have a jury that is
representative of that community. A black defendant in New York, Chicago,
Detroit or Los Angeles should be able to expect that at least one of his
jurors will be of color. There are too many recent trials where this has
not been the case. Though the defendant could still be found guilty, there
would be at least 1 unbiased voice on the jury. The Court has taken the
1st step; now the federal government must follow suit, by passing
legislation that ensures the term "equal justice" actually means
something.<>P> (source: Chicago Defender - Judge Greg Mathis is national
vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference)