AT Jurors Racist Juries get a bad rap; far less racist than having others in the CJS making they’re decisions. Their evidence is scapegoating, discount it, Conrad 14 Conrad, Clay S, author and attorney, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, published by Cato Institute, 2014 edition, originally published 1998, ProQuest. [, , ] As an institution, the jury has received a great deal of criticism, much of it unwarranted. This criticism tends to come from an elitist perspective: jurors are variously described as being or Of “dumb,” “racist,” “irrational,” “uneducated,” “lazy,” “irresponsible,” “ignorant,” “emotional.” course, these same critics are confident that they would never be selected for jury duty: they are too or “intelligent,” “objective,” “informed,” none of these criticisms are borne out by statistics: jurors, on average, have a In fact, “educated.” few more months of education than the average American. Jurors tend to take their jobs with a profound sense of responsibility, apply themselves with a great deal of energy and sincerity, and show less racial disparity in their decisions than any of the other actors in the criminal justice system— police, prosecutors, or judges. Yet it has become arrogantly fashionable to scapegoat the jury for any outcome in the legal system with which we are dissatisfied. Acquittal and voir dire solves Brooks 04 Thom, prof of law and @ of Jury Res Publica 10, gov’t Durham, “A Defence Nullification,” 2004, [, , ] Therefore, racial prejudice and the effects of racial discrimination may cause juries to acquit, as well as to convict, defendants who deserve to be Indeed, juries can acquit or convict for any reason, treated otherwise. as they need not offer reasons in rendering However, there are procedural protections against unsafe convictions for cases general verdicts. where no reasonable grounds for the conviction can be ascertained by an appellate court. If juries mistakenly convict a defendant, the defendant may be set free on appeal. Moreover, great care is taken in voir dire, at least in the US, to prevent potential jurors who have prejudicial views from sitting on juries.
AT Jurors Racist Juries get a bad rap; they’re far less racist than having others in the CJS making decisions. Their evidence is scapegoating, discount it, Conrad 14 Conrad, Clay S, author and attorney, Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, published by Cato Institute, 2014 edition, originally published 1998, ProQuest. [, , ] As an institution, the jury has received a great deal of criticism, much of it unwarranted. This criticism tends to come from an elitist perspective: jurors are variously described as being “dumb,” “racist,” “irrational,” “uneducated,” “lazy,” “irresponsible,” “ignorant,” or “emotional.” Of course, these same critics are confident that they would never be selected for jury duty: they are too “intelligent,” “objective,” “informed,” or “educated.” In fact, none of these criticisms are borne out by statistics: jurors, on average, have a few more months of education than the average American. Jurors tend to take their jobs with a profound sense of responsibility, apply themselves with a great deal of energy and sincerity, and show less racial disparity in their decisions than any of the other actors in the criminal justice system— police, prosecutors, or judges. Yet it has become arrogantly fashionable to scapegoat the jury for any outcome in the legal system with which we are dissatisfied. Acquittal and voir dire solves Brooks 04 Thom, prof of law and gov’t @ Durham, “A Defence of Jury Nullification,” Res Publica 10, 2004, [, , ] Therefore, racial prejudice and the effects of racial discrimination may cause juries to acquit, as well as to convict, defendants who deserve to be treated otherwise. Indeed, juries can acquit or convict for any reason, as they need not offer reasons in rendering general verdicts. However, there are procedural protections against unsafe convictions for cases where no reasonable grounds for the conviction can be ascertained by an appellate court. If juries mistakenly convict a defendant, the defendant may be set free on appeal. Moreover, great care is taken in voir dire, at least in the US, to prevent potential jurors who have prejudicial views from sitting on juries.
Premier-Debate-Brief-ND15.docx