Post by sclcookie on May 31, 2006 2:18:38 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 prosecution’s 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, hasn’t 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 prosecution’s 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.
(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 prosecution’s 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, hasn’t 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 prosecution’s 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.
(source: Chicago Defender - Judge Greg Mathis is national vice president of Rainbow PUSH and a national board member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference)