pthomas@arecibo.aero.org (Peter L. Thomas) (06/05/91)
In article <3970@d75.UUCP>, bei@d75.UUCP (bei) writes... >In article <Z07w32w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes: >>English. This was believed by the Court as proof that no ethnic >>discrimination was intended, but that the exclusions were based on the > >What is the central issue here: Fluency in the Spanish language, or >fluency in Hispanic culture? There's a Far Side cartoon which shows >. . .far side cartoon. . . >back to people, is a Hispanic jurist who can't speak a word of Spanish >socialized the same way as one raised in a Spanish-speaking or >bilingual environment? Is there a difference in their perceptions of >morality and society? In their perceptions of law enforcement, of >lawyers and judges? >I question whether the phrase "a jury of your peers" has much >meaning in (to mention two instances) trials with ethnic or technically >sophisticated defendants. Give a Hispanic defendant a jury composed >of WASP stockbrokers... Give a computer professional a jury of people >who have no experience with computers other than years of bad press, of >misplaced records, billing errors and IRS audits, and the occasional >sensationalist film or news story... A jury of *my* peers speaks *my* >language, be it High Clannach or ones and zeroes. I've often wondered about this. It seems, however, that the judicial system has weighed in on the side of peers are "fellow citizens." After all, you wouldn't want an ex-con who's been charged with committing another crime after release to be able to demand a jury of parolees. (In actual fact, I believe that felons (at least) are excluded from juries, et al.) I don't know if this is the _right_ way to do things. My feeling is that our justice system, with its burden of proof supposedly on the prosecution, would reach that goal more closely if the people who had to decide the accused's guilt or innocence were more likely to be predisposed towards the defendant's point of view. On one side, you pick (as close as you can) "peers of the defendant"--on the other, you pick the neighbors of the victim of the crime (i.e. the community in which the crime happened). I think we're closer to the latter right now-- with the exception of "change of venue." Although this discussion has far-ranging implications in the electronic frontier, (How do we handle "citizens residing in the electronic community :-)?) I've cross-posted to misc.legal and re-directed follow-ups there. --Pete