Talk:Racial discrimination in jury selection/Archive 1

Lack of Neutrality
This couldn't get any less neutral if it tried. This quote: "All White Jury is a media term used to describe a jury in a criminal trial composed of all Caucasians (often all male) who either find a minority guilty despite an apparent lack of evidence or acquit a white person or group of white people despite an apparent abundant evidence" does not belong on a neutral encyclopedia. -- B figura (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, this is not to say that injustices haven't and don't continue to occur. But as the article stands it's POV by definition. -- B figura (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think this is gone on notability though~ Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  )  03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to decide which deletion mechanism is best. CSD doesn't seem to apply, and I have a feeling that prod would be removed. AfD? -- B figura (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea tough call, I almost always bypass prods and go to AFD and it doesn't really qualify for CSD.~ Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  )  04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD it is then. -- B figura (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nom for AfD withdrawn due to a massive cleanup effort. -- B figura (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
This probably can be expanded somewhat, maybe with more of a background on historical cases. I'm sure there has to be a reliable source somewhere that's done (or published) a study of the conviction rates of as a function of jury makeup. -- B figura (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to AfD after closure
The following comment was added after the AfD was closed, so I've listed it here -- B figura (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This appears to be a list: " Famous cases of African Americans convicted of crimes by an all white jury". The definition is trivial. MarkBul 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
Where to start? Well, the idea that this is a "media term" is ridiculous, as is any notion it only recently developed. The concept is one that US courts and politicians have wrestled with on and off for more than a century, with crucial Supreme Court decisions hinging on the very idea. I've begun a potted history of the problem, leading into the Jim Crow era, but this obviously continues up to the present day with the American Civil Rights Movement (and don't let me catch you calling it the African-American Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King would never have permitted it) and even the Rodney King and O.J. Simpson cases have touched on it. Today the argument is little changed in substance although in practical terms much has changed since Plessy v. Ferguson. Apologists for the practice argue that race should be no factor in jury selection at all, regardless of the outcome, while critics maintain that fair trials are impossible without juries that represent the community. This remains at the heart of the civil rights debate in the U.S. and needs appropriate treatment.

In any event, good WP:HEY work, Richard Arthur Norton, and thanks to everyone who agreed that the article was worth saving. It's definitely more than a list! --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Question about links to other Wikipedia articles. I was looking for something along the lines of Racial bias in the US judicial system, but couldn't turn up anything, hence the link to just Racism. Does anyone know a more specific link? (Jury nullification is definitively the right idea, but doesn't address the racial motive as directly as I was hoping too. Best, -- B figura (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow
this article is growing fast. I think the examples should be divided into acquittals and convictions. Does anybody have an opinion on that?--The Emperor of Wikipedia 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubin Carter
I don't think Carter's case is a good example to cite in the article - it's true that he and John Artis were found guilty by an "all white jury" in 1967, but they were both retried in 1976 and also found guilty by a jury that included two African Americans. All the best, Lion King 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * During the jury selection of Carter's first trial, 377 potential jurors were examined. The Defense used up ALL of it's challenges, The Prosecution used only eight. If Carter was tried by an All White jury, it was because of his own Defence. Did they, his own defense, stack the jury against him? Carter's inclusion in this article is preposterous.


 * There is also no evidence whatsoever, to suggest that the jury, because of the color of their skin, did not deliberate fairly, or were baised against Carter and John Artis. It is therefore my contention, to suggest that they were, is potentialy libelous.91.106.207.49 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are confusing truth with verifiability. Wikipedia isn't about truth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I? I see, so what your'e saying is, that you can verify that blacks were unlawfuly excluded from serving on the jury in Carter's trial and that the "All White" jury's deliberations were unfair and biased? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No the All white Jury article is about the idea that a jury made up of only one ethnic group (the dominant ethnic group of the U.S.) would be biased. Not that they would in fact be biased.--The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, the article is then based on supposition, NOT FACT. 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a FACT that many people BELIEVE that an all white jury would not be able to render a fair verdict. Many of Carter's supporters do argue that his first trial was unfair because of the fact that the jury was all white. The article is not about the truth of the allegations just that the allegations are made. --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Carter's entry in this aricle does not mention "allegations" of unfair deliberation by an All White jury, if they are just "allegations" it should state so, quite clearly.

Of course it is a fact that people hold beliefs but it does not mean that the belief has any basis in truth, certainly not in law. A person may believe that a little green man who lives in their tv set told them to gun down school children. Is that person correct about the little green man? Yes, because they believe it but their belief has no basis in truth. Presented with such a case, would a jury believe that the person believes that the little green man told them to shoot the children? Yes. Would they then find that person not guilty because he believed it? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the opening line of the article. " "An all-white jury" is an American political term used to describe a jury in a criminal trial, or grand jury investigation, composed only of white people, with an expectation that the deliberations may not be fair and unbiased." Notice that the word expectation is in bold. No one, other than the jurors, can ever say for sure that race played part in the verdict. The article mentions Rubin Carter because his case is famous and the all white jury argument is used by his supporters. --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be in bold, I understand that it is "a political term" but to lump Carter's case in with genuine gross miscarriages of justice such as the Scottsboro Boys, where the Supreme Court (Powell v. Alabama 1937) ruled that they "had non-exsitent legal represntation and were denied due process", is really outrageous because Carter's supporters "believe" that (and let us not mince words here) an All White jury are "of course" racist and did not deliberate fairly just because of the color of their skin and it is not only a a slur on the members of that jury, it is also a racist assumption without foundation. What do his supporters cite for the reason for his reconviction? Perhaps the black members of the jury weren't black enough? 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What I was drawing your attention to is the word "expectation" being in bold. I do not know if Rubin Carter is guilty of murder or not. I do know that his supporters do use the all white jury argument in his defense. --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they do use the all white jury in his defense, which is no defense, it is an unfounded accusation. I have raised my objections to Carter being included in this article, and hope they have been duly noted. It just remains for me to thank you for your time and attention 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)