Hurricane Katrina’s Second Anniversary »
By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:
(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.
(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.
(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.
(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.
(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.
(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:
(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.
(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.
(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.
(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.
(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.
(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.
(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.
Disclaimer:
--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.
--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.
--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.
--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.
Read and Post at your own risk.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
This seems a potentially troubling indicator of “quality”. I mean, just because society is racist (or even a specific cop is racist) doesn’t remove individual guilt for a specific crime, right?
Racism in society should not become a reason for jury nullification. That way lies a particularly brutal variant of anarchy.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Well first of all, that was only one of several performance indicators listed (the study measured eight in total, five of which were race-free, three of which related to discussing racism). If heterogeneous juries only outperformed on the race-related ones, then that would be one thing, but they outperformed on all eight, so the broad conclusion holds. More importantly, surely you agree that it is qualitatively better to at least discuss the possible influence of racism in a criminal case than to ignore it, right? That’s a simple affirmation that juries should examine all potentially relevant facets of a criminal trial (its neutral to the outcome of such discussions). A quality jury does that (on race as much as any other potentially salient considerations). Willingness to discuss is all the three race-metrics were measuring: the number of times race was raised (beyond bare descriptors), the number of times “racism” was discussed, and the percentage of times that even discussing the possibility racism was objected to.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
It depends. If racism relates to the possible guilt or innocence of the accused, then yes, I agree. If racism is invoked instead as a form of an affirmative defense (i.e. “yes, he did it, but the racist system made him do it”) then I think that would be a very negative use of racism that should not be considered by the jury.
So all I am saying is that consideration of racism is not automatically an indicator of jury quality.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Based on how the study presented it, I don’t think the latter case is what they’re talking about (but I’m not sure; see the discussion at 607-608 and draw for yourself). Even if it is though, that actually could be relevant in determining degrees of culpability, which juries are often called upon to decide. And finally, I still think that generally it is generally better to discuss things than to not discuss things, so I’d say it’s still probably better for juries to mention even a rather “shady” racism issue (and then shoot it down) then to not bring it up in the first place (but even if you don’t agree, I’d say that definitely if the risk of bringing up “bad” racism claims is outweighed by all the other performance benefits raised in the study). In all then, I’d say the concern you raise, to the degree it’s even present, is pretty attenuated and rather marginal in light of the totality of Sommers’ findings.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I agree that the rest of the criteria are quite good which is, of course, why I didn’t critique them. My concern is only that sensitivity to race may be given too much weight in their definition of “jury quality”, especially given that the primary role of juries is supposed to be focused on individual factors (guilt or innocence) not societal defects. Because they are intended in a limited role as the finders as guilt or innocence instead of superheroes righting wrongs, I do not agree with the view that juries should be freely-roaming investigators and repairers of various societal ills.
No need to get so defensive, David. The singling out of one component of a research piece for discussion is pretty standard practice in both academic and common discourse and it rarely indicates a complete dismissal of the rest of the piece. In fact, it usually indicates the opposite. If I thought that the entirety of Sommers’ findings was indicted, I would have said so.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Without having read the study, my immediate reaction is that I would EXPECT racial diversity to be a good influence. Any homogeneious group is more likely to succumb to group think, I suspect..
An all black jury for a black defendant could be vulnerable to being too sympathtic to ‘one of ours’, while an all white jury might see the defendant as the ‘other’ and be oblivious to certain considerations, like racism in the course of arrest and onward. in the legal process.
When I’ve been called for jury dury, I’ve noted an alarming lack of class diversity. Professional people were glaringly absent, and the jurty pool contained a high percentage of the retired and unemployed. That troubled me.