Interesting. There are many philosophical distinctions about the meaning of “fair.” It is a shame that, in our common tongue, we can’t seem to agree on a common meaning of basic terms.
If we consider racial issues as a wedge, then I would agree with anyone who says: “if a different result for the same facts comes about on the basis of race, that would be unfair.” But just because many liberals here contend that a black person in Kyle’s exact situation would have been convicted, that doesn’t make it true.
“Fairness” does not and really cannot exist in a vacuum. It is very much fact dependent.
I’ve seen black defendants get acquitted. Even by largely white juries. Why? Because on a very regular basis, despite some shortcomings, the jury system tends to work. It may be imperfect. Injustices and miscarriages of Justice have occurred. But in the normal course of events, juries do what they’re asked to do. Be fair. Be impartial. Make reasonable findings of fact. Apply the fact findings to the law as instructed in the law. Then, render a verdict in accordance with the law and the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.
