PDA

View Full Version : Racism and Jury Nullification



KneeLess
June 3rd, 2004, 03:27 PM
I recently watched a show of the evidence agaisnt R. Kelly for the child pornography case, and it reminds me of the OJ Simpson one. They showed the evidence of why he was guilty, and then they showed that many witnesses lacked credibility. But the next thing that happened disturbed me. They went to go talk to people on the street what they thought of it, white people said he was a child pornographer and should be punished, while minorities said he was a local hero, and they would support him no matter what happened. One woman went so far as to say, "We can't let the white man take down R. Kelly." For one, this statement is obivously racist, stating that all a white person in the legal system wants to do is take down black people. And secondly this statement shows (along with other statements made on the show by minorities) that many of these minorities just want to support other minorites regardless of the evidence.

This is an obvious reminder of the racial tension of the OJ Simpson case. Any comments on jury nullification (where the jury, not as a whole mind you, decides to disregard all evidence and use their feelings...whether they be based on race or not)?

Dionysus
June 3rd, 2004, 03:41 PM
Any situation where bias causes facts to be disregarded is unfortunate. However I believe we all do it in some form or another.

Iluvatar
June 3rd, 2004, 04:34 PM
Too true. I try to consiously avoid it, but it happens anyway. I don't really know much about the R. Kelly case, but if it's as you describe it, that bites.

Meng Bomin
June 3rd, 2004, 04:38 PM
I find it rather sickening. Politics should not enter the courtroom at all. If there is a problem with a law, contact your legislator, don't be a passive-agressive jury member. In this case, it wasn't a matter of laws but of perpetrators. If the person is a perpetrator, they should be punished, regardless of their race.

Iluvatar
June 3rd, 2004, 04:51 PM
To quote Atticus Finch, "The one place a man should get a fair deal is in the courtroom." Whether victim or perpetrator, race, social status, whatever, should not matter. Admittedly, I can't make a good judgment on this case, but in general, politics often play a large role in court, and they should not.

tinkerbell
June 3rd, 2004, 05:27 PM
Takes me back to the good ole Mike Tyson days...

KevinBrowning
June 3rd, 2004, 07:34 PM
From my personal experience, blacks are more often overtly racist than whites. Historically, of course, they had good reason, but not as much anymore. This isn't to excuse white racists, of course, of which there are a great deal. I think the trend is such that many whites keep their dislike of blacks secret; there are more covert than overt white racists now, I think. Many blacks, on the other hand, don't seem hesitant to admit openly they don't like white people. Of course my perspective is biased, based on a large number of factors; this is just, again, my personal experience.

Slipnish
June 3rd, 2004, 11:08 PM
My closest friend is a little black guy. He's about 5'6" and 200lbs. He says 200lbs packed in a thimble. Not fat, but solid. He introduces me to everyone as his "little" brother. At 6'2" and 300lbs, that is kinda funny.

I tell everyone he got all the pigment, and I got all the size.

At any rate, he occasionally will enlighten me on the state of modern racism. I, for whatever reason, never cease to be amazed that this kind of close mindedness still exists.

I think KneeLess hit it on the head. There is a rampant undercurrent of racism both ways.

As for the jury in OJs case 9 were black, 1 hispanic, and 2 whites. Any of those jururs could have hung the jury, but didn't.

I have heard various reasons, mostly centered on the lack luster performance of the prosecution, their inexperience, and the showboat attornies that Simpson hired, but not any for reasons based on race.

As for R Kelly, I don't know. I haven't seen all of the evidence, but I have heard some testimony. They had a special on it a few days ago. They interviewed the alleged aunt of the girl in the video. The girl and her immediate family deny her involvment, but the aunt says its her.

Apparently the aunt had some business dealings with Kelly in the past and her niece appeared in some of her aunt's videos.

So....................

I don't know. I cringe when I hear people of any color say stupid stuff like that. What ever happened to justice and a fair trial? Why would anyone be more interested in the color of a man's skin than the interests of a minor child?

What in the hell are these people thinking?

mrs_innocent
June 10th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Racism in any situation is bound to be negative, let alone in a courtroom. Admittedly, I didn't follow the R. Kelly case much, but I found this article (http://www.globalblacknews.com/hip-hop-xfiles.html) somewhat interesting. Just as hate breeds hate, racism perpetuates itself as well, and this is a classic example.

As far as jury nullification, it should be treated similarly to perjury. No matter how you slice it, you're ignoring the facts and lying--usually to serve your own agenda (in this case, the jury's agenda, I suppose). When you have humans running the justice system (as is the only option), mistakes need to be expected. Loopholes are everywhere, and nullification is only one of them.

KneeLess
June 10th, 2004, 05:33 PM
As far as jury nullification, it should be treated similarly to perjury. No matter how you slice it, you're ignoring the facts and lying--usually to serve your own agenda (in this case, the jury's agenda, I suppose). When you have humans running the justice system (as is the only option), mistakes need to be expected. Loopholes are everywhere, and nullification is only one of them.
I agree, but jury nullification is very hard to prove, all they basically need to say is that we heard the evidence and we couldn't agree beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

This part of the article you mentioned is so pointless it's funny:

So this [refering to FBI planting evidence, etc.] is an effective method of shutting some one down. Second of all, the timing of the charges was an indication that he was being systematically destroyed. These charges were brought to light right before, possibly the biggest album of his career was about to be released, which was "The Best of Both Worlds". R. Kelly lost millions of dollars in tour money, endorsements, and record sales to say the least. This is just another part of the destruction process; (1) kill the reputation, and (2) drain the finances. Along with the millions of dollars needed to fight the legal battle, if Kelly somehow survives this, he could very well be broke when it's all said and done. The timing of the second set of charges could prove to be equal as damaging. Even though this was evidence confiscated during the initial seizure, it hasn't been made public until now, why? Could it be that his new album, "Chocolate Factory" is about to drop, and could serve as the first stepping stone to rebuilding his reputation, and winning back the many fans that he lost? Wait, it gets deeper. They found 12 photos, his bail was set at 12 thousand dollars, and the date that he was charged was 1/22, which when you take the first two digits of the date you also get the number 12. That's 12, 12, and 12. 12 is a multiple of the number 6. When you add up the three numbers, you get the number 36, or all depending how you "see" the number, three 6's (666). He recently received a standing ovation rumored to be greater than Jam Master Jays at a concert given in New York by radio station Power 105, that's also the number 6 (1+0+5=6). His new album, Chocolate Factory will be solo album number 6. The original charges were filed in June, 2002, which is month number 6. His last solo album was called TP2.com which is short for 12 play, a multiple of the number 6. He was charged with 21 counts of child pornography. When you juxtapose the number 21, you get the number 12, which again is a multiple of the number 6. The new charges dropped on 1/22, exactly 6 days after his performance in New York for Power 105 (1/16). It's also exactly 6 days before his new album was originally scheduled to be released (1/28). Since record companies don't like to release new albums during the mist of a scandal, they have pushed the date back to Feb, 18. There are those three 6's again, which also happens to be during a full moon. I wonder who idea was that? He was born Jan, 8 1969. The month and day add up to 18, which is three 6's (6+6+6). The year that he was born adds up to 6 as well, 6+9=15, 1+5=6. R. is the 18th letter of the alphabet, that's three 6's (666), 6+6+6=18, and if you want to break it down even further 1+8=9, 9 is just an upside down number 6. He was 33 years old when he was first charged, 3+3=6. The press stated that if he was convicted, he could face up to 15 years in prison, 1+5=6. The numerology speaks for itself. It indicates that there is nothing random about the charges, the timing, or events leading up to his demise at all. This is something that has been well calculated.

It also indicates that whoever is behind the plot has extensive insight into numerology, possibly astrology, metaphysics, and many of the other so called "dark sciences", which leads me to believe that this is something far deeper than anyone could have ever imagined. It would seem that there are forces at work here that can't be seen with the naked eye, but exist right outside of our current physical reality. Now for the million $ question; what energy does R. Kelly posses that would require the forces of the "dark sciences" to stop him? For years now the "secret" government has been trying to capture, contain, or destroy this force that is only bestowed upon a few men.
Are these guys kidding? I'm starting to lose respect for many black people going to great lengths to prove a brother innocent. And by great length, I mean the "dark sciences" mentioned before. :)

mrs_innocent
June 10th, 2004, 06:13 PM
I agree, but jury nullification is very hard to prove, all they basically need to say is that we heard the evidence and we couldn't agree beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Right, and that's only one of the problems. This site (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html) is sort of random, but it does make some points about jury nullification. I can't verify it's validity at the moment for a lack of time, but it raises some interesting questions. All in all, though, it's like you said-not provable beyond the shadow of a doubt.


Are these guys kidding? I'm starting to lose respect for many black people going to great lengths to prove a brother innocent. And by great length, I mean the "dark sciences" mentioned before.

I got a pretty good laugh out of that part, too... :lol: Makes you wonder what people are thinking when they write this stuff! :rolleyes:

KneeLess
June 16th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Right, and that's only one of the problems. This site (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html) is sort of random, but it does make some points about jury nullification. I can't verify it's validity at the moment for a lack of time, but it raises some interesting questions. All in all, though, it's like you said-not provable beyond the shadow of a doubt.
After reading that article, it poses to me a question: should juries have that right? I don't see how juries should have it at all. Every person deserves the right to a fair and just trial. This means fair on both sides, not only the defendant. It seems silly to me that juries are allowed simply disregard evidence no matter how blantant and rule not guilty (or guilty) because of simple feeling, racism, sexism, etc. Thoughts?

KevinBrowning
June 16th, 2004, 11:21 PM
I think race should almost never be allowed to be mentioned in court cases, and the race of jurors should be disregarded. Only through intentionally ignoring race in legal issues will it cease to be a legal issue. Endlessly trying to make things "more equal" by readjusting the jury based on race only underlines the issue, and makes a big deal out of something that shouldn't be one. Of course, if the case concerns racial discrimination of a provable nature, then it's a factor. But when a juror's race is considered in a case that has absolutely nothing to do with race, that's just aggravating the problem.

mrs_innocent
June 17th, 2004, 08:42 PM
After reading that article, it poses to me a question: should juries have that right? I don't see how juries should have it at all. Every person deserves the right to a fair and just trial. This means fair on both sides, not only the defendant. It seems silly to me that juries are allowed simply disregard evidence no matter how blantant and rule not guilty (or guilty) because of simple feeling, racism, sexism, etc. Thoughts?


It is rather ridiculous for any jury to have the right to nullify. If nullification is allowable and not punishable, then what in the world is the purpose of the jury to begin with? Without any comprehension of jury nullification, one may be inclined to believe it to be quite similar to a "hung" jury, or outright dismissal. Of course, this is not the case. When you build a jury based on each member's race, gender or societal class (maybe even religion, who knows?), you're bound to end up with a good many beliefs that will probably clash with the jury's intended purpose. Perhaps the lawmakers were a bit confused by what "nullification" actually meant. Maybe they still are, or maybe they're just not concerned with what a mockery is able to be legally made of the so-called justice system we have in place today. It reminds me of the movie "Runaway Jury". The circumstances were different, in that the "wrong" verdicts were reached, but for the same underlying purpose: special interests. Not the political special interests, mind you, but individual interests rather than that of the law. Just a thought.

Slipnish
June 18th, 2004, 08:37 AM
Smacks of propaganda to me.

More disturbing were the people they interview who say things like:

"Well, you know. R. Kelly is my boy, and I like him no matter what."

Uh-huh. How does buying someone's album make you their slave for life, without the ability to judge things for your self?

KneeLess
June 20th, 2004, 01:48 PM
I think race should almost never be allowed to be mentioned in court cases, and the race of jurors should be disregarded. Only through intentionally ignoring race in legal issues will it cease to be a legal issue. Endlessly trying to make things "more equal" by readjusting the jury based on race only underlines the issue, and makes a big deal out of something that shouldn't be one. Of course, if the case concerns racial discrimination of a provable nature, then it's a factor. But when a juror's race is considered in a case that has absolutely nothing to do with race, that's just aggravating the problem.
A nice idea, but how would you implement it? Hoods and cloaks to protect skin color? Not likely. Race is always an issue no matter what the case, and it always will be.

It is rather ridiculous for any jury to have the right to nullify
The theory behind having a jury is to be judged by your peers. If you peers think you're guilty/innocent regardless of the evidence then such is life, or nullification in this case. If you start to limit the abilities of the jury, then it's not a free choice anymore.

mrs_innocent
June 20th, 2004, 03:43 PM
If you start to limit the abilities of the jury, then it's not a free choice anymore.

Perhaps that's how it should be. No jury should have the power to falsely determine the outcome of a case. If crime and punishment is to be determined by law, then either change the laws or revamp the system. Why bother with laws if a group of 12 people can randomly choose to ignore them? I understand there are sometimes special circumstances, but those cases are usually the exception rather than the rule and should be judged accordingly. Maybe we should just do away with juries all together. In short, the right to nullify a case, meaning to disregard the facts and the law entirely-allowing the case to be affected solely by all other factors such as race, gender, or personal emotions- should be taken away and be a punishable offense once proven.

Slipnish
June 20th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Perhaps that's how it should be. No jury should have the power to falsely determine the outcome of a case. If crime and punishment is to be determined by law, then either change the laws or revamp the system. Why bother with laws if a group of 12 people can randomly choose to ignore them? I understand there are sometimes special circumstances, but those cases are usually the exception rather than the rule and should be judged accordingly. Maybe we should just do away with juries all together. In short, the right to nullify a case, meaning to disregard the facts and the law entirely-allowing the case to be affected solely by all other factors such as race, gender, or personal emotions- should be taken away and be a punishable offense once proven.

You know, innately I have no disagreement with your sentiment, but I have NO idea, how you would implement it.

I served on a jury for armed robbery. We had video suveilance, a signed confession, the clothes, and part of the recovered money. (The guy we were trying was not the gun weilder, but one of a small group who robbed a local convenience store.)

This guy on trial, was on probation at the time, had already been to jail for drugs, and was looking at some serious time.

After a whole day of this, we still had one jury member who was convinced he shouldn't go to jail.

She stated, "He's too young to go to jail."

The law as clear. He was guilty and the sentence for armed robbery was like... I dunno 5-45 years or something. Anyway, a damn long time, if we as the jury so decided.

I wanted to hit her.

She wanted to convict him, and let him go. Now there is a nice punishment....

Just goes to show. God loves stupid people. After all, He made so many of them...

mrs_innocent
June 20th, 2004, 08:47 PM
You know, innately I have no disagreement with your sentiment, but I have NO idea, how you would implement it.

Well, it would take awhile and a hell of a lot of resources, but there are solutions: only allow the offenders of certain crimes the right to a trial by jury. Or simply do away with juries all together...just off the top of my head. I know, screwy ideas. But the justice system is screwy anyway, right? :neut:

I just don't see the need for juries to have the right to nullify. period. What purpose does it serve? How is it in anyway upholding the law? It's not, and it's only one of the many problems the America's grossly misconducted legal system.


Just goes to show. God loves stupid people. After all, He made so many of them...

You speak the truth!

Slipnish
June 20th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Well, it would take awhile and a hell of a lot of resources, but there are solutions: only allow the offenders of certain crimes the right to a trial by jury. Or simply do away with juries all together...just off the top of my head. I know, screwy ideas. But the justice system is screwy anyway, right? :neut:

It is. Perhaps a random "jury review" or something? My fear is though, once you begin to pay attention to the juries, then the people will go the other way and you have people getting 25 years for jay walking, just so the jurors can feel like they aren't UNDER doing their job... :?:


I just don't see the need for juries to have the right to nullify. period. What purpose does it serve? How is it in anyway upholding the law? It's not, and it's only one of the many problems the America's grossly misconducted legal system.

I did see this on TV a while back. Some high school kid, 18 years of age, was arrested for having sex with a minor who went to the same school he did. It was a statuatory rape case.

Now true, it didn't make it to trial, but what if it did? I could see the need for a jury to say, "Hey. This is stupid, and who wants to punish a kid for being a kid? He didn't rape the girl, she's just a little younger than he is. What's the point?"

So, I guess on something like that, yeah, maybe. Other than that, I dunno.

mrs_innocent
June 20th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Good point, hadn't thought of any such scenario. My focus was mainly on the case in question, but I guess I did turn away from that, huh? :red:

KneeLess
June 22nd, 2004, 08:07 PM
This is what I like to see! People deciding that our perfect democracy isn't as perfect and trying to come up with solutions to various problems. mrs_innocent, what I think you're talking about is trial by Judge, or maybe a selected panel of jurors whos only job is to judge their peers. Now this could work, but it also falls prey to the same problem, albeit a little less. I honest cannot think of a way that it would be possible to judge or enforce a law about jury nullification.

But I ask, is it such a bad thing? Let's say this, a felon rapist petafile out on parole gets convicted of grand theft auto, (of which he is completely innocent), goes to court. Now the jury is presented with the information that this man is an extremely dangerous individual that should not be on the streets. But there is substanital evidence that he did not steal that car, enough evidence to easily disregard all charges. Yet, the jury finds him guilty and puts him up the river for 20 years. They very well knew that he didn't do it, but it's better that he's not here anymore. Thoughts?

Slipnish
June 22nd, 2004, 08:30 PM
The problem is, some of the time, they won't let evidence of other crimes be admitted as evidence.