Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Stuart M. Willis hbiki@****.geocities.com
Subject: [SOT] (Sotra-on-topic) Juries (was Racism, et hoc genus omne).
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 19:55:32 +1000
What I'm going to say can actually be applied to Shadowrun quite easily
enough, hence the SOT. Especially in many areas of the CFS, and the Tir and
the like. Imagine having a Troll character fronting up for an charge
(against a human Lone Star officer ;-)), and the jury is composed entirely
of Elves and Humans (cause Trolls will look after their own kind while
Humans won't). Wouldn't happen? BAH.



>From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
>To: "'shadowrn@*********.org'" <shadowrn@*********.org>
>Subject: RE: [OT]: Racism, et hoc genus omne.
>Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:21:08 -0400
>charset="iso-8859-1"
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.org
>
>Stuart M. Willis [mailto:hbiki@****.geocities.com]
>> i'm going to give you two emotive examples of what i'm
>> talking about. yes,
>> they're law examples, but i'm a law student and most of my
>[snip jury-composition examples]
>
>OK, I don't know a whole lot about the US legal system, and I only
>have a lay knowledge of the Canadian one

That's okay. My biggest issue with the law is that it tries to make itself
exclusive. And you're quite right in what you say (the same applies in
Australia, and our legal system is closer to the Canadian system than it is
to the American system).

>The lawyers *on both sides* get to interview the individual. If
>they agree to accept them, they're in and they call the next
>candidate. If they agree that they're obviously biased, they
>reject the candidate.

'obviously' is quite abitary.

oh, and most lawyers tend to be white, male, and middle-to-upper-class. so
their (sub)conscious prejudices seep into the jury selection process. in
fact, the legal culture (which encompasses the wide culture of the people
that make up the system) helps construct the idea of what is 'obviously
biased'. the norms reinforce themselves once again.


> In short, if a jury is all-male or all-white,
>it's because the lawyers agreed on such a composition (or pure, blind
>chance).

Yes, it is agreed upon. A (sub)conscious

>To my recollection, lawyers actually end up studying stats a fair
>amount to try and predict the decision despite any lack of obvious
>bias ("In rape trials, X% of women find against the defendant").


Sure. Lawyers make a killing out of being able to 'predict' a jury.
However, using statistics to justify prejudice comes close to facism in my
mind. Its only a logical step away to say: 'Well, 98% of serial killers are
white and male, so lets kill all the white males' or '56% of our health
budget is spent on 89% of elderly people, so lets make involuntary
euthaniasia legal and kill them all'.

Yes, they're extreme examples, but removing every female from a rape jury
because x% of women find against the defendant is a form of prejudiced (in
the sense of pre-judged). You don't have males removed from the jury
because x% of males find *for* the defendant, do you? The white male tends
to be what we compare the statistics. It is the yard-stick. Unfortunately,
people tend to not measure the yard-stick.

>In short, both lawyers try to stack the jury in their favour with as
>much subtlety as possible.

Subtlety? Everyone knows it goes on. My dad got called in for jury duty, my
mum and I explained to him how to act if he wanted the rest of the day off.
:-)

> All male or all white isn't exactly subtle; maybe they had a reason for it?

The reason? What I gave. Women and Blacks can't be trusted, in the mind of
a male, white, upper-middle-class lawyer. And Judge's tend to agree with
the lawyers, cause they're white, male, and upper-middle-class too.

These people mightn't think themselves as being prejudiced, or biased, but
preconceived notions too have a tendency to worm their way into things,
especially social constructs like law. :-)

(Did you know that until about 1920 women weren't even considered 'persons'
under the English Common Law? And that Atheists weren't allowed to give
evidence cause they weren't trustworthy?:-)).


care,
s.




---
| phat phuture musakician : conceptioneer: information designer: wanker |

dangermedia assassin: http://www.dangermedia.org
the net is not a tv [duh]: http:/www.dangermedia.org/nntv/
associate director, dump huck industries: http://www.dumphuck.com
difficult music for difficult minds: http://www.dumphuck.com/dms/

ICQ: 4340513
mailto:hbiki@***********.org

| some is good : more is better |
---

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [SOT] (Sotra-on-topic) Juries (was Racism, et hoc genus omne)., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.