![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
jury selection
The Tribune-Review (a local newspaper) has been going on at length about alleged bias in the county's jury-selection process. Why? Because X% of the county is black, but only Y% of jury candidates are (where Y < X). Obviously (ahem), this is because of bias on the part of those who decide whom to call for jury duty.
Their investigation didn't turn up any patterns of systematically ignoring certain neighborhoods. They did note that if a jury summons bounces they don't do anything about it, because they don't have the manpower. The paper asserts that blacks in Allegheny County are more likely to rent than whites are, so they move more often, so these mailings bounce more.
The jury pool is drawn from the rolls of registered voters and licensed drivers. I'm not sure if being both of those doubles your chances compared to someone who is only one of those. The oh-so-detailed invesigative reporting didn't include that issue.
However, voter registration is free, so anyone who wants to be considered for jury duty can trivially enter the pool. And for both voter registration and DMV records, you are required to update your info within something like 30 days of moving. I once got a jury summons about 6 months after I had moved, at the new address, so I know the records get updated.
But all of that aside, the Trib seems to have latched onto the notion of a "jury of one's peers" as a basis for arguing that whites can't judge blacks and vice-versa.
Here's the letter I sent to the editor. I wonder if they'll print it.
You keep using the word "peer". I don't think it means what you think it means.
The notion of a jury of one's peers comes from English common law, where it means that nobles will be judged by nobles and commoners will be judged by commoners. We don't have those class distinctions here in the US, and the phrase "jury of one's peers" does not appear in our laws. Our laws specify fairness and impartiality, not composition.
But suppose that the notion of a jury of one's peers were actually valid. Why is race the relevant factor? My peers are intelligent, well-educated professionals in analytical fields such as engineering, mathematics, and law, and race is much less important than religion among my peers. If I should be so unfortunate as to be accused of a crime, do you think you can arrange a suitable jury for me?
It sounds like the real problem is that a portion of the juror pool isn't taking appropriate steps like registering to vote and updating DMV records when they move. Whose fault is that? Maybe we need more sources of data on prospective jurors, but if so, those additional sources must be independent of race if the system is to be fair.
Do not attribute to bias on the part of the system what can be explained by sloppiness on the part of prospective jurors.
Their investigation didn't turn up any patterns of systematically ignoring certain neighborhoods. They did note that if a jury summons bounces they don't do anything about it, because they don't have the manpower. The paper asserts that blacks in Allegheny County are more likely to rent than whites are, so they move more often, so these mailings bounce more.
The jury pool is drawn from the rolls of registered voters and licensed drivers. I'm not sure if being both of those doubles your chances compared to someone who is only one of those. The oh-so-detailed invesigative reporting didn't include that issue.
However, voter registration is free, so anyone who wants to be considered for jury duty can trivially enter the pool. And for both voter registration and DMV records, you are required to update your info within something like 30 days of moving. I once got a jury summons about 6 months after I had moved, at the new address, so I know the records get updated.
But all of that aside, the Trib seems to have latched onto the notion of a "jury of one's peers" as a basis for arguing that whites can't judge blacks and vice-versa.
Here's the letter I sent to the editor. I wonder if they'll print it.
You keep using the word "peer". I don't think it means what you think it means.
The notion of a jury of one's peers comes from English common law, where it means that nobles will be judged by nobles and commoners will be judged by commoners. We don't have those class distinctions here in the US, and the phrase "jury of one's peers" does not appear in our laws. Our laws specify fairness and impartiality, not composition.
But suppose that the notion of a jury of one's peers were actually valid. Why is race the relevant factor? My peers are intelligent, well-educated professionals in analytical fields such as engineering, mathematics, and law, and race is much less important than religion among my peers. If I should be so unfortunate as to be accused of a crime, do you think you can arrange a suitable jury for me?
It sounds like the real problem is that a portion of the juror pool isn't taking appropriate steps like registering to vote and updating DMV records when they move. Whose fault is that? Maybe we need more sources of data on prospective jurors, but if so, those additional sources must be independent of race if the system is to be fair.
Do not attribute to bias on the part of the system what can be explained by sloppiness on the part of prospective jurors.
no subject
no subject