Good point that racist are found in every racial make up, and yes the system (((if))) controlled properly by laws and racially blind justice (otherwise that recognizes this problem), is supposed to mitigate the effects of these case's becoming swayed by racist attitude's or intimidation once the case enters the court room.
It can easily become however, that what begins to take place in society, can next become a strong tool that can be taken into a court room in which might sway the proceedings into a situation of favor instead of justice. Now how does society get away or stay away from such a thing as racial or social justice being played out against evidence ? Not sure other than to do away with the old jury selection system, and actually make the juries job's permanent employment. This way jurors can be trained in law, and become vital asset's in the upholding of blind justice, and law and order. They need to be trained professionals in the realm of law, justice, and in keeping order in evidence near and dear to them.
Preposterous.
Up until the Jury everyone involved is trained in the law, and paid to do the job. Think about it for a moment. The Police are trained and charged by law to enforce the law. Yet they lie, plant evidence, hide or destroy evidence, and violate the Constitutional Rights of the citizenry pretty regularly.
Their actions are reviewed by other cops, and then by the District Attorney. Look at every exoneration. In every one the DA knew there were problems and continued with the Prosecution. Why? It’s his job to prosecute. His job, he is paid to prosecute people, even if he has doubts. It’s not up to him to decide the guy is guilty, it’s the job of the Jury, and his job is to fool the jury.
The Judge is trained and experienced in the law. Paid to insure that the law is followed. Additionally he is responsible for explaining the law to the Jury.
Yet Judges are overturned, or overruled all the time. It is why we have an appeals process. To weigh the issues in a more controlled setting. Then if we don’t like the decision on the appeals, we can go higher. Eventually appealing to the Supreme Court, and the legal experts trained and all that to be there.
Yet those experts, trained and experienced, came up with the asinine doctrine of Qualified Immunity. A doctrine that has shielded corrupt and bad cops for going on three generations.
And if you go with professional jurors, the next question is what happens to the Reasonable Person doctrine? We judge many events based upon what a reasonable person would think in that situation. Is it reasonable to do this, or not?
Take a case from our recent history. Michael Drejka shot and killed a man over a dispute revolving around a handicapped parking place. The Defense and many others argued it was self defense. The prosecution and the police argued that it was murder. The Jury watched the tapes, listened to the testimony, and debated for a while before deciding it was not reasonable to shoot McGlockton. There was a pause between the pulling of the pistol, when McGlockton took a step back, and the shooting.
The Jury decided it was not reasonable for Drejka to still believe he was in danger, sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
Drejka was sent to Prison over the howls of outrage by some. What would a professional Jury think? What would be their connection to the Reasonable Person argument? They would be professionals wouldn’t they?
One of the problems facing our society is corruption in Police. Cops on the take. Cops who are bribed. Lawyers and Judges are also susceptible. But wouldn’t the professional juror also be susceptible?
Now, someone would have to assign Jurors to the cases. That assignment could be random, picking twelve names out of a hat out of a pool of one hundred. Or more likely it would be a supervisor assigning jurors. Kick a little money towards him and get a jury who is made up of people more likely to be favorable towards your case. Or talk to him and get a jury to decide that the accused is guilty.
But let me ask you this. Why do you believe we need this professional jury pool? What decisions have been outrageous? What decisions have made it apparent to you that the average individual is incapable of understanding what the case was really about? Was it this case? The case of the killing of Arbery? Or was it Chauvin? What case helped you decide we need professional jurors?