The big problem with how we pick juries
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- A legal loophole makes juries less diverse.
Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl/0bsAjO
Four years after the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, the police officer, Jason Van Dyke, faced his day in court. But in a trial where race became central to the case, there’s only one black person on the jury. And that’s in a county where nearly a quarter of people are black. How did this happen?
In jury selection, racial discrimination has historically been tricky. Discrimination isn’t allowed in jury selection, thanks to what’s called a “Batson challenge.” But the problem is - Batson has been widely regarded as a failure at keeping racism out of the jury box. Watch the video above to find out why that is, and why it complicates the prospect of a fair trial by jury.
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out www.vox.com.
Watch our full video catalog: goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: goo.gl/XFrZ5H
make it a blind selection. the jurors are behind a screen and the lawyers ask them questions but can't see them. When they started doing blind auditions for orchestras, the amount of women want from around 10% to 50%. The Judge can still see the jurors, and see if they are telling the truth or not, but the lawyers can't.
In Chicago (and most places outside the south) it would be pretty easy to tell a black person by their voice.
Yeah, although it doesn't hold true for every single person, it's pretty easy to tell if someone is African American from their voice. And it's not just the accent, it's something about the actual voice itself (sorry, I don't know the technical terms). I mean think about making phone calls, I can often tell when someone is African American without ever having met them. Putting potential jurors behind a screen might help a little bit, but it wouldn't completely solve the problem.
@@klalakomacoi Written answers maybe?
@@klalakomacoi Voice disgusing software. But I like that idea Esme! That's a great idea!
@@AdeleiTeillana Not always the case though
Emmet till was pistol whipped to death, his mom had an open casket funeral and invited the press to see and take pictures of what the men did. The pictures are pretty gruesome and graphic.
he was just a kid and they were grown men. it was awful.
They should just have people who know the law
The men also confessed to the crime right outside the courthouse right after they were acquitted. Sold the story to the press on the courthouse steps. Couldnt be tried again because of double jeopardy.
@@XboxUnitD77 yeah I just wrote that
Also if you didn't know the people who killed emit actually wrote a book confessing that they killed him because of his race and made money and because they had already been convicted (at that time you could not be charged with the same crime twice) so they profited of the murder as well
The Till case was/is truly disturbing
Bigbang is your bias’s bias and you know it heyyyyyy kpop fan
Wow a year later they care because of a video
Not just disturbing but disgusting
And they even chose neighbors of the defendants to be the jury. Like??
you should see the pictures of him in his casket ,, truly horrible racism in this world.
I still don't understand,what was he thinking when he was shooting the young man 16 times?? Even when his body fell to the ground he still kept shooting.
His corpse might be resisting arrest. /s
Inner hate against black because he is racist fell.
He wasn't thinking.
@@shlomosilversteinberg5785 How was he a threat?
@@shlomosilversteinberg5785 he only have a goddamn knife. He already walk away from the police with a knife. A KNIFE. IS HE A MOTHAFUKIN KNIFE THROWER?!
Sorry. It just you seems like don't understand the story
And people say racism is a thing of the past.
I don't see why the race of the jury matters. I guess by their facts, they're just saying blacks are willing to protect one of their own.
@Asma Koshin If this is true of whites, it would be true of blacks as well.
Asma Koshin how can u back up the statement, that’s racist to assume that all white people would lock someone up solely based on their skin color
I’d say we live in a post-racist society in America where the majority speaks for anti-racism. However we do live in a race based society, as in we still live with prejudice and ideas of race in the back of our minds whether we like it or not. There is no person in America who is “colorblind,” we all see race and we all associate different races with different attributes and that’s where the problem in American lies. No one is willing to acknowledge the fact that Americans are being indoctrinated with ideas of stereotype and prejudice towards different peoples.
Not only that, but many of these racist institutions of the past still exist today such as ghettos and over policing which actively work to prohibit POC from advancing in progress. I mean so long as their is a wealth divide, there will be a race divide as the history of America and white supremacy have made race and wealth a one on one link.
It is because its illegal. You can never change the way someone is tou shouldn't want to. But you can make laws to protect people from being physically hurt for no reason. There's lots of laws like that.
The saddest part about this is that the woman responsible for emmitt tills death is still alive and living out her golden years in Mississippi as if nothing happened.
@@misaelarvizu9616 that’s ignorant to say, I’m white and I say that. I know other white people who say that. That’s not a black motto and that was ignorant to say period
@@misaelarvizu9616 like you said rap culture not black culture. They are not the same
@@certitv1937 ok whatever
Idk if you meant this in past tense but she died ages ago, she only admitted lying prior to death
@@misaelarvizu9616 Pretty sure the idea of not snitching goes back to when terrible people starting collecting in groups and doing bad things, at least tens of thousands of years ago. But then, you likely know more about groups of terrible people than I do.
Just a note that the reason for reducing the charge to 2nd degree is that 1st degree murder requires premeditation and thus a higher burden of proof. By reducing the charge, they guaranteed a conviction.
@XZDrake Yea, I gotta agree with you there. This wasn't premeditated in the traditional sense but one can assume that when racist-slime-dog-cop-boy got the call regarding this young man he decided he would shoot first, ask questions later.
Anne prove it lol
Everyone seems to Acknowledge the PROBLEM but No one seems to know tha SOLUTION for the PROBLEM.
Same lol
There are plenty of solutions. They just don't won't to implement them. They don't want change. Its why the justice system is still so F'd up.
It's very simple, Mr Fish Frog: You do away with juries.
The real problem isn't a lack of black jurors. It's people who don't have money. If you don't have money, you get a free lawyer that you talk to for 10 minutes the day before your trial. you will guaranteed to be convicted. Even if the accusations are false. Because your public defender doesnt have time to even tell you your rights. They just say "there's nothing I can do for you exept get your sentence reduced."
@@justinrohrer9952 the public defender does tell you your rights. if they didnt, most people convicted would be able to get out citing inadequate counsel. what they DO, however, is strongly encouraged you to accept a plea. over 90% of incarcerated folks accepted the plea regardless of guilt.
I learnt about the case of Emmett Till in school 11 years ago and it is still one of theost shocking and barbaric crimes I've ever heard of
Dude Ted budy has a Netflix show 🤦
This week I was on jury duty. Initially, there were 50 of us. Only 18 selected to be interviewed as a potential juror for a jury of 12. So that if they excluded someone sitting on the jury box they already got 6 ppl as back up to fill any empty seat. It caught my attention that the 18 potential jurors selected "randomly" were all white or people with anglo last names. Not most but ALL. I truly believed in our judicial system until today.
So some of them were black?
Anton Helsgaun No, they said all of them were white.
and?
just because they were all white doesn't mean there is proof of any racism.
@@basedyoshi7253 it's a potential thing and it gives me pain
A white Chicago police official shot a black teenager
That didn’t age well
Yeah whenever police misconduct ends in a death it doesn’t age well, it wasn’t well in the first place
Except blm wasn't justified and was overly done
Strahinja Nikolic no
@@TrollingCat no
@@Rusamisokay the idea of it was good, but what actually happened was outrages, but it's good to see an empire crumbling from it's own stupidity, the cycle repeats itself
The ink is Black. The paper is White. Together we learn to Read and Write.
then the yellow is the lighter fluid uSED FOR BURNING THE BOOKS
Aaron the yellow is to make a area communist dumbass
@@inactive6200 You mean smurf blood?
Tf what about Asians? Are we not there
Is the pen asian?
Shout out to The chill White people that want unity/peace and stand with minorities. 💯💯
This comment is amazing
I agree, let's push for a final unity between our people and ignore all of the racist politicians and political speakers who try to keep us separated.
❤️
Whach my vid to see meme no one cares about your opinion
Ok and your a walking resessive trait.
The Till Case reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird... I was literally seething with anger in English class
Keep seething, weirdo.
No, suh
I was a pre-AP English teacher in a very low-income, overwhelmingly-predominate African American district in a suburb of a major city in the South. TKAM was in our curriculum. It was a sensitive subject but, luckily, my AP kiddos were very nature and civil and it lent itself to really great discussions. As a white, (then) blond and blue-eyed woman, students were sometimes scared to use terminology or bring up a point but we got around it. Since this was going on during the "black boys in black hoodies" era, those conversations were essential and being able to connect the fiction to the present reality, work through anger, and talk about it with others outside of the classroom was a great step in improving relations with one another. I was so proud of those angry, angry children.
@Minecart Rider You're not helping non-white people with that racist crap.
You don't fight racism with more racism.
@@minecartrider7057 yeah listen to this guy ^^^
I never understood judging people by a skin colour, this is not the medieval times
Or the 60s
Ironically enough racism wasnt really a thing in medieval times.
But if a woman could read she would be burned at the stake. So it wasnt exactly any better than today
Very different in the US than in Britain. Very very different, in many ways.
No, that's where you eat a hen while watching jousting
Serge Fabre 77% of the Arab world can read. But please, feel free to continue believing in your islamophobic beliefs
RIP Emmett Till, we must never stop fighting the evils of racism
MK I disagree. Racism isn't evil. It's irrational, based on unfounded principles, and generally self-harming. I do agree that it is a fundamentally bad practice but I question why you think only in terms of "good" and "evil" when those concepts are subjective to begin with.
Spikey Plant What are you trying to argue? Sounds like pointless excuse-making to me... 'Evil' is defined as profoundly immoral. Racism is to believe you are better than someone else based off their race. This is also known as pride. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. Racism is inherently evil and immoral.
Racism is evil when used as the motive for murder.
MK You’re an idiot if you ever think racism can be stopped. For as long as humans walk on this planet, racism will exist, anywhere and everywhere.
@@zmc6774 The very concept of "race" did not exist as recently as the 1400s dude.
I hope more Cops go to Jail for breaking the law
good on you
@@alejandromendez7185 but do you trust the people who broke the law to protect your life?
L
Just put all cops in jail.
and more of everyone.
I find it odd to let "normal" citizens be a jury, how can you trust that they will do it just? I mean some dude can just decide he doesnt like one person and just ignore the facts and vote as he wants.
Exactly, I always thought this was their actual job, I was so surprised to find out they are just regular people randomly selected. It’s weird to me
Decision must be unanimous, how high is the possibility that all the jurors will decide based on if they like the person or not? Also I would like to point out the fact that that can happen with people doing it as a job.
especially the fact that you feel peer pressured to side with a certain side. If you disagree then you have no hope and you’ll just have to agree with them
@@lorandliszkai7084 if it was an actual job the jurors can be bribed by the accused’s family
That's the way the USA has decided to go. There are positives and negatives to having a jury made up of "normal" civilians. And that's why they say "you don't argue law you argue emotions". Whichever side can convince the better emotion wins the case.
I'm not from the US. The concept of a jury deciding a case always felt to me like a modern form of trial by combat.
Don't give them ideas!
It is to prevent corruption
I agree with deb on paper it sounds like an idea that would help combat corruption
in that on paper it would be hard for the jury to be made corrupted if they are picked at random and are put through a process to figure out if the jury would be bias
That only thing I think might need to change is the lawyers ability to take out members of the jury with made up reasons
Well it fails miserably at that.
How do they do it in your country?
Why not remodel the process so that the lawyers do not see the jurors until the choosing process is over? This can be done by questionnaire or by any question answer process that prevents the image or sound of the people being chosen from being seen while the challenges are being issued. Theres no intrinsic information that we agree should be used that is gained from seeing and hearing the juror. If they say an answer that is alarming to the lawyer it would still be true if the lawyer had to read it through an all text format. Or finally lawyers issue questions and a third mediating party asks them and sends the answers to the lawyer in a textual format without speaking to them. Easy fixes that are feasibly done if this issue REALLY mattered to people
Discrimination of the jury does not happen nearly enough to change the entire legal system, although I do support a change.
I do think judges should be required to ask the same question to all of the jurors rather than a specific one, though. This would be fair.
I think the reason things haven’t been changed yet because it is a complicated and long process for a small* thing.
*I say small but it’s all relative and compared to some very large issues it’s not top of the list
This is genius.
That's a great idea!!
+
Nearly all our systems in the U.S. are broken. We need to push past reform and establish entirely new systems of justice, equitablilty, peace, trustworthiness, truthfulness, and so forth!
They aren't broken, they are working as designed.
Here's one: A defendant whose lawyer is appointed is given the same amount in funds as the state gives the prosecutors.
All too often justice is based on the amount of money people have.
let me introduce a term coined by Derrick Bell that will put things in perspective for you: interest convergence
the only way reform will be passed, is if the the people on the opposing side (whether it be an industry, individual, whatever) gets their palms greased. there is always some kind of economic benefit to laws and reform. it is never for justice
Yeah we do. Women get sentenced a fraction as much jail time for the same crime
But for this, the citizens need to be open-minded, selfless, empathetic, and a little more turned towards science... Which a lot of Americans aren't. Just look at what's happening today in several states regarding covid.. But that's just an example.
The case of the murder of Emmet till was disgusting imo
I agree with your opinion
@@squarerootof2 you see how you all of a sudden felt attacked hahah you must be a white male
Yeah sure, but it was the time of racist America, not happy time fun
@@zoeman7720 I mean, he just comparing two equally disgusting cases and saying ones worse. You're the one who just attacked him.
@@squarerootof2 true. Black people do worse things to white people than vice versa.
This seems awfully familiar
Madison Brendler-Kowal sadly
Why do lawyers get to be a part of the choosing process in the first place?
Jorge E Maybe because they represent the interests of both sides in the case?
“Why does sauce have to be on pizza?”
Because they have an equal stake in the case, so they each get strikes
Honestly was the defending lawyer can't get a better balanced jury its a failure on that lawyer's part.
Checks and balances basically.
Shoot 16 times? Do the think black peolpe in the US have super powers?
American police are not nationally trained. Local training programs emphasize threat and "threat" elimination almost exclusively over de-escalation. Also, if you have made the decision to shoot, you have also made the decision to kill, therefore one would empty their magazine. Bullets are cheap and police are trained to view their own lives above the lives of others, moreso than humans normally do.
tldr: Locally training programs consider it cheaper to train killing than problem-solving.
@@RamdomView
It is simply cheaper to execute criminals :P
@@RamdomView That is very true. Training de-escalation to normal guards is very time consuming so it is reserved for the swat team.
@@i.i.iiii.i.i- You mean to say "summarily execute criminals".
Though easier for the police, it is much more harmful to society as a whole when we choose to not reform wayward citizens.
@@RamdomView The way society is run is going to cost you. Either economical or socially.
I don't live in the States but it does seem that money is chosen over people.
This comment section going to be wild
Here come the police apologists
Its better take all raceizm out her then in real life
If that's all you took from the video then you might just be dumb bro, I dunno.
@@toussaintthomas8015 they're not wrong. There's gonna be debates. I just saw one on here lol.
Sometimes, I save my Word documents every eleven minutes instead of every ten minutes.
#wild
Wow! Thanks for the video! I'm a Vietnam vet and was often ashamed to be an American when I saw how our troops behaved. This video certainly brings back those feelings. We humans are often a dreadful lot! Best of luck to all of us!
This is late but thank u for your service
It's not complicated at all. Just get rid of peremptory challenges altogether. Peremptory challenges have no legitimate function.
So someone who's is a family friend of the prosecutor should get to be a juror? How do you think that will turn out?
Merc_W08 that’s cause. Dismiss with cause
There is a reason to have peremptory challenges. It’s to allow the prosecutor and defense a chance to pick a jury in their favor. That’s the entire point of all of this. Not just to find an impartial jury, but to find a jury that will allow you to win. Courts are adversarial in nature so you can’t expect jury selection not to be also.
Good luck with that.
@@amyperdue9015 if that's a reason they exist, that's a better reason they shouldn't. Why should either guilty be able to give themselves a defense based on lies and falsehood? Or innocents getting charged because of the same?
US of A. What a beautiful country. I would be genuinely scared of going on holiday there. And I'm white. I mean white white.
Simo_Simo I want to say that it's not so bad, really, but. I don't blame you.
I’m Canadian. I want my own wall.
@@DogGran Come to Europe
@@mandi17simo yeah, here most people don't even care about race, it's forbidden for the government to even acknowledge race, thus in Paris racism is almost inexistant
@@Azknowledgethirsty and that's why Europe is dying
WAIT... how the heck did the officer have 16 bullets???
Did he like... reload three times while shooting an already dead boi??
One Clip can hold up to nearly 20 bullets so he nearly empty the entire thing
Gabriele Genota do you know nothing about guns?
smok3d lmao
smok3d he's prob thinking about the video game pistols lmao
@@Mo-io2nx nope
I feel like being a juror should be a profession, where you’re specially trained to hear cases. Like a judge but with less power and there are 12 of you
Most European countries do something like that.
1. Why is he carrying a knife
2. Why so much shots
3.WUT
I want to know too
The man was mentally ill and the officer didn’t stop firing until his partner told him too
Maybe he was eating an apple.
Pseudynom I know right like damn
its not ironic, its the standard behavior. mentally ill people are at a far higher risk of danger than to be the cause of danger.
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/half-people-killed-police-suffer-mental-disability-report-n538371
United States be like : « come to our land. It is the land of freedom and equality of chances no matter what your race is » lol
joseph Ivernel and then when you get to the border they turn you away
Why are black juries not replaced with another black jurie that don't matches the reason for the exclusion? For example an unemployed black male could replaced with an employed black male if this was the problem for the attorney.
Also why there is no rule that in every jurie, there have to be at least one black man, one black women, one white men and one white women, this would garantie at least some kind of diversification?
It gets weird if you start having to include every race or something. Does 1 asian mean 1 chinese person and 1 japanese person and 1 korean, or just asian in general? Are indians asians? Should native Americans be in juries?
I'm not even sure I care too much about the jury themselves, there's also sometimes whether actual truth is being presented or if by technicality or straight up dishonesty it is obscured, that may go either way too, a real piece of evidence proving a murder might not have been properly signed off for in a search warrant or some such, or certain segments of police body/dashcam footage is somehow inexplicably missing.
Even if you have a proper honest and properly diverse jury of peers in a courtroom, are they actually getting the true full picture?
Then of course there are the laws themselves, and the sentencing decisions, what constitutes particular crimes, why do minor drug get longer sentences than cheating out taxes in the millions and then continuing to lie to investigators?
If you enforce that then you enforce racial discrimination though
Because whites and blacks are not the only 2 races in America. What about Asians for example? And in a town with say a
These racial inclusions are what's thickening the divide between races.
It would be absurd to accuse someone of being biased purely because their hair colour doesn't match your own, yet it's different when it comes to skin colour?
If you believe that you should be assessed and evaluated only by members of your own race/creed then you yourself are engaging in racism
Because that kind of throws a monkey wrench into it.
The Ray Tensing thing was where they tried a little something like this. It ended in a mistrial because of that and other reasons
Who would have guessed America is still racist
The problem isn't how juries are picked, it's juries in general.
How juries are picked is definitely an issue.
@ayy so it's better to let a single judge decide the fate each time?
@ayy That's what many continental European countries have, and that isn't that great either. It creates a class lawyers that can protect itself by a barrier of study and is intrinsically linked to the rich part of society. If ideas become fashionable in that upper class of jurists, they can find their way into the justice system without the people being judged by the system having any say in that. It's exactly what the jury system is trying to prevent.
@ayy Juries aren't just randos with elementary school education, they come from all sectors of society. The jury verdict has to be unanimous.
How are juries a problem? Do they keep delivering verdicts you disagree with?
i can't believe that happened in my county and i didn't know about it
lamekidclub Surely you knew all these black people weren't angry for nothing. You knew tnere had to be some truth to what we've been saying.
@Tina Yael Severinova M. Yes! Thank you for mentioning George Stinney! People always seem to forget about him
lamekidclub this is America we are talking about. The land of the racisim, in equality, murder, corruption, death, poverty, oH aNd tHe fReE
Why is this all new to you? It's called white privileged ignorance. It's not your fault, it's shows the racist system built by whites is working...
"Don't judge people by their skin color." Followed by, "We needed more people of a certain skin color on this jury."
Black lives matter ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻
All lives matter! No matter the race!
MikeyGeess nobody denied that but were focusing on blm first because they’ve been treated like second class citizens for thousands of years
@@hamboogermember4232 idk where you got those likes
@Michael Gaudreau just say your racist and go
Hey Vox. I appreciate what you do. Your videos are professionally made, interesting on many different levels, and I look forward to your next one. Just saying thanks for being here.
they're misinformation
It’s a left leaning news source. There are right leaning ones as well. Both have bias and skew evidence in their favor, so ultimately it’s up to the audience to think critically and without bias about the evidence presented
+Mr Laughs What's misleading about this video?
kaneki IQ isn’t a set in stone intelligence. I could score low on an IQ test when I’m 10 and score high when I’m 30.
kaneki You're a weeaboo, no wonder you're so dumb and uneducated. It doesn't matter which race you are. What affects your ability/want/need for violence is the environment in which you grow up.
DE-ESCALATION and STRESS TRAINING are a few of the only tactics proven to work. There is absolutely blame to be placed on the cop, no doubt. But a lot of the reason for these types of incidents has to do with unconscious bias- ie racially coded messages in our media and stereotypes.
When cops are trained in simulations and learn how to deal with the stress response, they are able to react calmly and logically, not in stress mode. When we go in to a mode of extreme stress, our brain stops most higher logical and thought process- we rely on instinct. And if your instinct is rooted in stereotypes, well..... it's not hard to see the outcome.
100% agree. Emptying your magazine is more like something an untrained citizen would do with a home intruder. We trust that officers are trained better than anyone else. However, there were many allegations of lack of training or poor training with the Chicago PD at the time of Laquan's murder.
Well said.
@Shawn Lawson it's written about in books such as Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink." I've also studied it at my college in classes concerning environmental politics and social studies.
@Shawn Lawson unless you have a counter-argument or a rebuttal, you might want to start using other ways to persuade a nonexistent audience than ad hominem and "common sense".
Shawn Lawson but she didn’t just read it in books she said she studied it in college
Jurys celebrate ignorance. They want people with no life experience, not a single clue of the law system. This needs to change!! We need educated jurors!!
Have you heard what happened to Curtis flowers?
Please look him up, his story is horrible
How sad
There is a podcast that tells the story. Look it up its ridiculous what they done to him. Edit: its called in the dark and its season 2
The criminal trial law in the US seems really odd to me as European.
It seems odd to everyone around the world.. I mean why use jury? Why not let judges decide what to do with alleged criminals??
In overcoming the shortcomings of the English system, we invented new shortcomings.
It's pretty similar to most places around the world, these media companies try to blow things out of proportion to push their political agendas, the american trust in news media is the lowest it has ever been
Our judges and lawyers are racist and biased as well. Just go look at Kavanaugh who was just appointed to the Supreme Court. I’d take my chances with a jury in this country over them.
@@t4squared You're right, we should just punish people for allegations. We don't need proof! We don't need trial! We should just execute people because we don't like them.
why didn't they arrested an tried the lady for manslaughter after she told the truth that it was a lie?
Recanting doesn't necessarily mean she was lying
Laura Beth yes it does.. that’s exactly what it means. Her story was a major reason the murders walked free and a key piece of why they believed they killed him
TobiIsAGoodBoy1 because she did not directly participate in the murder. She just said that emmet harrased her, and then her husband decided that a black kid flirting was super bad and went out to murder him. The wife did not tell him to murder emmet. Not saying they were in the right, but she did not commit a crime
Sir Rivet wouldn’t it still count as obstruction of justice, although maybe the stature of limitations was up
she admitted it on her deathbed
As an attorney Jury Selection is in my opinion the most difficult part of the trial. In California for misdemeanor trials we get less preemptory challenges than you get for felony trials. But, if there is unlimited "strikes for cause" but often times when a juror is clearly good/bad for your side of the argument you will try and eliminate them while the other side rehabilitates them and vice versa. I believe if more people (any race/gender/creed/belief) participated in jury selection and showed up the problem would not be as stark. Most people honestly cannot afford to be on a jury because taking a few days off unpaid to sit in court is a huge financial hit for many people. Many employers will not pay them to do jury duty so juries are composed of those who have the financial means to do so rather than a proportionate amount of members of the community.
TY for your perspective. Given that finance is an issue, the cost for the working poor to have to serve on juries makes it difficult (if not, impossible) for a working poor person to be tried by a jury of their peers.
You hit the nail on the head. It's more than a huge financial hit when you are living paycheck to paycheck, or depend on life saving medications that are costly. It can literally be life or death, being deprived of income for however long the trial lasts. Couple that with the courts racketeering scheme called "Filing for lost wages". I'll explain: In my state (Indiana), it costs $80 to file for a days lost wages. Which is more than a minimum wage days wages. The amount you MIGHT get is pre-rated AT minimum wage, and averaged to 40 hours a week. They can still deny you, and then you are out that $80 AND your jobs daily wage. It doesn't just effect the poor though, if you have a good job that pays well, you are still taking a hit, being reimbursed only at minimum wage, and even if you normally worked 60-80 hours a week, you are only being paid at the rate of minimum wage at 40 hours. It's a double edged sword that screws everyone, and once again, they can still deny you, then you lose the filing fee AND your jobs normal wage. I find it funny that ALL the people in the court room telling us jurors that we have the most important job, all share the same employer: the state, and are paid handsomely, while asking US to do that "most important job" for peanuts. You get what you pay for.
It's interesting to learn about the process of picking Jurors in America. I'm Australian and I had Jury duty about 1 year ago. You're chosen at random, assigned a panel and a number and you just need to be there in case there is a trial that needs you otherwise you might go home early or back to work and once your two weeks is up you leave if your not still on a trial. My number got put on a trial and there were no interviews. Our names were called at random in court and each person that was called walked up to the front and if the defendant said no you didn't get on the trial no questions asked if they didn't say anything you swear you won't lie and then you're on. They give you the opportunity to opt out if you feel you will be biased (you have to explain why).
The trick in Australia is you wear a collared shirt with a suit and tie and bring in a copy of the Financial Review. You'll be challenged before you even enter the box.
"The big problem with how we pick juries"
It's forced.
The whole jury system is completedly flawed. Don't even get me started on social polarization and conformity.
Most underrated comment!
That's one hell of a rabbit hole through a very skewed justice system.
yeah it is stupid. The jury should not be able to be changed.
I worked downtown the day of the trial and when I found out that he was convicted on all counts I started to cry. For once, there was justice.
Okay let’s make a deal right now, let’s all be kind.
I really do love vox and I think that this channel is super underrated. It brings so many things from our history that was hidden to bring awareness and teaching us thank you vox!
100%
Underrated? It has millions of views for crying out loud.
If you can't trust 12 people to decide a case, think about trusting 300 million deciding the fate of a country every 4 years
If it’s a black problem there should be black juries
and then claim him innocent because he’s one of them and because they are all oppressed together ? 😂
No because if there’s only white people that weren’t even around the crime scene why should they be there yeah there could be other white juries but there was only one black jury so there should be more black jury’s not to help him win or because of past problems but to make it fair
I also feel like I need to State the fact that the monument built for Emmet till and the sign marking it is riddled with bullet holes
BASED
Honestly, why have lawyers be able to take out jurors in the first place? The reason why there is 12 randomly selected jurors in first place is to reduce bias and truly reflect the general public's opinion. Having lawyers then be able to change out jurors is just calling for systematic biases and manipulation of results.
The whole city was tense as we awaited the verdict that day
a jury should _always_ represent the local people accurately. it’s not a fair trial without a fair jury.
Why shouldn’t people who are distrustful of the police appear on juries?
Devils advocate - but you could claim the person has a pre existing determination of the facts of the case which will harm any impartiality.
You kinda see that in the video where two white men were acquitted by their white neighbours over the murder of a black boy.
Trial by jury is outdated and should be replaced with trial by judge (preferably a panel of 3 judges). Average people don’t know enough about laws to make these kinds of decisions.
Jurors do not need to know about the law. They are "judges of the facts". The judge on the bench is a judge of the law. Replacing juries would be a huge strike against checks and balances, as you would be giving whoever appoints the judges too much power
I wonder if larger juries-and I mean way larger, one or two hundred or even more-chosen randomly, and with no opportunity for either counsel to bump any of them, would avoid these problems?
That's an interesting proposal, indeed. A small problem however is that, people often dislike jury duty, being time consuming and elses, and the court often struggles to just find enough jurors that fit the criteria for the trials that we have. And vetting 100 jurors would be a small nightmare...
Yes or only struck on transcribed statements with no visual or auditory info.
That be terrible
Damn
Why do some cops think it's ok to shoot someone more than once
What are you talking about it makes perfect sense to shoot someone more then once. Not justifying the obvious misuse of deadly force in the video just pointing out the fact that unlike video games there is not a hit marker. Depending on the threat waiting a few extra seconds to see if they are hit and done resisting could be life or death. Police are trained in cases needing deadly force to deal with the threat until it is no longer a threat. In many deadly force cases this means shooting more then one bullet. It is also not uncommon in many deadly justified shootings for police officers to empty an entire magazine at the person. This is done to not only eliminate the threat for officer and civilian safety but also due to the extreme adrenaline dump in many of these situations its not uncommon for officers to not realize how many shots they actually fire. If someone is pointing a real gun at you odds are you wouldn't stop after one bullet either. Also police officers do not shoot to wound for many reasons with the essential two being that shooting to wound is not very effective as well as not an easy shot to make and two if officers are shooting to wound then likely there are other options available to those officers meaning deadly force is not the best option like less then lethal tasers or bean bag rounds. This doesn't mean if someone survives a police shooting the officer did not consider them a threat it just means that they shot until the threat was no longer present or at deadly force level. There are many stories that I have heard in the news and from police officers about suspects not going down after many shots even surviving for periods of time after receiving many deadly shots. For officers the use of deadly force is serious and should be treated seriously though the idea that its not okay for officers to justifiably shoot more than once is ridiculous. While there are some cases of officers only needing to shoot once that is the exception not the rule more often then not and in those cases it is usually a deadly shot.
@@TriRevan532 Everything you said I agree with though you left out one thing. Standard firearms in any police force are usually only chambered in nine millimeter and 45 .ACP as they are usually handguns, which obviously wouldn't down anyone in a single shot. That's also taking into account what you said, they panic and don't have time to think where to place shots.
1) they are trained to 'neutralize the threat' and in cases of suspects with very agitated, erratic behavior, that may call for what some people would consider "excessive force."
2) not all cops are trained well enough or have the emotional faculties (despite a screening process) to handle stress under that kind of pressure and panic, often emptying their weapons, as seems to be the case with Laquan.
Maybe, a good start would be to train cops to deescalate, and not shoot first ask questons later
then you get cops who get shot trying to ask some questions
Guy Cardwell thank you! People on here are misinformed by the media.
@@zihenglao3591 that nearly never happens less than 100 cops are killed yearly. and a larger number of them are due to accidents not murder by the offender . but if you are black and unarmed you are 3 times more likely to get killed .check your facts before supporting the murderer
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/?.8ad9cecf4d60
That's how it's supposed to happen, hence why the officer was convicted of murder.
Opinion from Argentina: "jury of peers" should translate into random draw sample of the population.
Can’t beat racism with racism
I actually got the chance to hear Emmett's cousin talk about what happened the night of/after he was kidnapped. I was so angry that these men thought they could do this to a child because he was black. Now anytime I hear the name Emmett Till, I am filled with so much sorrow and I can barely hold back my tears.
I just learned this in school
Black people or not we all have same access to education nowadays...enough with victimhood!
I’ve lived my entire life in Chicago and can say that this was a massive deal for this city!
There will always be positive and negative sides to the jury system. However, changes will come with time. Attitude changes should allow for a more diverse racial mix of juries.
How can a country that calls itself United be so devided?
1:11 "What happens if the jury doesn't look like our peers"
Not justifying misuse of lethal force, but just because two people are of similar color, doesn't mean that they share the same values. Second of all, values don't really matter in a court. In fact, they should be kept to a minimum. The jury should rely more on factual bases, critical thinking, and evidence when supporting a verdict, rather then bias. Your statement could ironically be racist in two ways. One involving the implication that people of the same race have the same values, which from both a moral and logical standpoint, is quite erroneous. Second is suggesting that the jury be composed of the defendant's race, thereby imbalancing the jury. The latter isn't much of an issue though. Either way, it doesn't matter if the jury is mostly composed of a certain race, it matters that they take note of factual evidence presented before them rather than bias of any kind, including racial. This statement supports both our points, but adds what was lacking from yours.
Yep. The statement they made was very racist.
I feel like the narrator was implying that the jury should be representative of the population. Like if I have ten jurors and a third of my local population is Latino, then you should have three Latino jurors. Or if my community is half senior citizens, you'd expect 5 senior citizens on the jury. The phrase "our peers" is unclear, but I interpreted it as the local population. I agree that it would be unfair to misrepresent local demographics in a jury. I don't think shes saying, "if the defendent is black, the jury should be too."
@@roasty-toasty-19 Correct. In the same population the jury should have the same (proportional) distribution of races regardless of the race of the defendant.
thank you! i‘m stunned how proponents of such ideology don‘t seem to realize just how racist some of their ideas are...
and i‘m also not trying to play the case down... there‘s definitely a discussion to be had about police brutality... but what was proposed in this video seems horrible to me...
Why even have the "without reason" striking?
It allows you to remove people on a hunch. Basically the person may give the correct answer, but you sense they are not enthusiastic about it.
In theory this is actually a good system if both parties are neutral and faithful.... its just this is rarely the case, and it needs more checks and balances.
When I served as a juror, the perpetrator attacked violently an elderly man. We saw video footages from both the victim and security cameras. The perpetrator was a black homeless man who didn’t like the Latino elderly apartment manager to tell him to clear his tent and trash from the driveway. It was clear for all jurors who was guilty, except for the only black juror who insisted the perpetrator was a victim of racism and therefore he attacked justly, although there was no racial incident. The juror in question changed her mind but this incident made me think: can we all look at reality through the lens of humanity instead of using race as a crutch?
As a dutch person I found it quite strange that you let random people decide that will happen to the criminal instead of letting professionals decide, in my opinion, these random people don’t have an objective view on the case... or am I wrong?
The Juror system is created to, basically, inject common sense and human emotion (context) into an otherwise dry, purely logical and emotionless process. It's exactly because it's NOT objective so it's used, a bit of subjective view comes a long way to finding out the truth.
However, this, as it sounds, is very abusable, and to function properly would require a highly educated population, esp in the critical thinking department. And the US, well...
the problem is that the american justice system uses a jury in general
Jury Selection has to be more diverse, so Justice can be Served equally. 👩⚖
Diversity in thought or demographic?
@@thejurydoctor6097demographic
In Sweden, juries are uncommon. The public is represented in the courts by means of lay judges instead. Similar in Norway, Denmark and Finland. The French judicial system does not have recourse to juries except in assize courts. There is no such thing as a jury trial in Germany and judges take on a more active role in court proceedings. I believe Japan has a similar system as well.
Wait, in America is the prison sentence determined by the jury and not the judge? Is it not just if they are guilty or innocent.
No, I'm pretty sure how long they are in jail or if they get probation/reduced jailtime, is determined by the judge, but the jury decides if they are guilty or innocent
Jack Ryan Minor cases only have judges, but a jury only states that they believe the defense is innocent, guilty, or jury nullification.
I was on jury duty three times and never saw one black face in the court house.
Perhaps you shouldn't use the OJ Simpson case as an example.
Alex Hyams do your research before you speak... www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0318-latasha-harlins-20160318-story.html%3foutputType=amp
Alex Hyams payback!
you just made my case
It's kinda insane that we give any random untrained group of people the ability to ruin the lives of individuals instead of leaving it up to the trained, educated, experienced professionals.
get rid of JURIES
Why can't we end this jury system or jury should be someone with law background
Abolish the jury system. Always been flawed and massive waste of time & money
It's a lawyers job to get his client off at all costs, is it racist? Yes but to them that doesnt matter
Ya i mean if it works it works. Not there fault
Thanks for airing this problem.
Is nobody going to mention how the sun does not actually rise?
Jury selection should be entirely random. If a crime is committed in a particular neighborhood, then the jury should be chosen from that hood. Neither the prosecution nor defense should have any say in selection. An independent judge should be appointed to excuse only medical conditions with proof.
Hahaha hahaha, why have a stupid jury system in the first place?
Julius Johannsmann it’s not stupid it’s flawed
It goes back to the Magna Carta and was supposed to be a check on the power of the king and his hand picked judges.
5:50 He sounds like Donald Trump
it's you
Just you
I read your comment. Then I immediately knew when I was at 5:50.
He sounds much smarter than Donald Trump
Ban juries for God's sake.
Everyone of the 5 times I’ve been selected for jury duty and the two times I’ve actually served, I was very impressed of how well the system worked. However, I’m a white male.
I was impressed the time I served as a juror, too. Fortunately the stakes were low (a battery that resulted in slight wounds) but the judge struck me as being fair and mostly did a good job of stopping the (incompetent) defense attorney from repeating himself.
That was my experience too. During Voir Dire, I felt the lawyers were really trying to create as fair and impartial a jury as possible. From videos like this and the comments, it's easy to believe everything is broken, and forget the positives. It usually works well.
Why was he walking with a knife anyway tbh
Juries are very unfair, always pick a judge!
Very unfair. You could have a jury of 13 random people plead a person not guilty but a different 13 people plead the person guilty. Then a lot of people on jury don't care and want to get out so they agree with the majority to get the case over. Then the talkers and people in charge take over.
Although it wouldn’t work perfectly. Juries should represent the population of the city or county they live in for example if their are 12 jurors and in the town 42% are black 25% are Hispanic and 33% are white than 5 jurors should be black 3 should be Hispanic and 4 should be white
These racial inclusions are what's thickening the divide between races.
It would be absurd to accuse someone of being biased purely because their hair colour doesn't match your own, yet it's different when it comes to skin colour?
If you believe that you should be assessed and evaluated only by members of your own race/creed then you yourself are engaging in racism
I don't understand why he was in the street with a knife and why the officer shot him. Could someone tell the back story of what happened.
Cecil Gordon I want to know the backstory.
"A jury of your peers" consists of the peers of the defendant, not the community as a whole.
What's with the FiveThirtyEight podcast music?