K_Z
Verified Anesthetist
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 6,657
- Reaction score
- 2,500
Jurors' implicit biases on the minds of attorneys in Mohamed Noor trial
Interesting article revolving around the race of the defendant which I think is going to play a large part in this trial.
Personally, I find it abhorrent that race is an explored topic at all in legal trials and jury selection. Isn't Lady Justice supposed to be blind? Neither the race of the defendant, nor the race of the victim/s should be a discussed consideration during jury selection in a legal trial, IMO. The focus should be on personal behavior, personal history, actions, qualifications, etc. This incessant focus on race in criminal trials only perpetuates racial animus and racial divisions in our society, IMO.
It is an example of government promoted racism, IMO, to "question" prospective jurors about their "implicit bias".
It's beyond prejudicial that so called "implicit bias" is allowed to be explored in jury selection, but exploring juror's ideas, attitudes, and opinions on "diversity hiring" programs that waive certain hiring state-mandated qualifications based on the desired "racial" make up of the police force, is not. If it's "fair" to ask jurors about their supposed "implicit bias", then it's "fair" to ask about their opinions on diversity hiring of lesser qualified candidates. Either ask about both, or remain silent on both. My opinion. Yours may vary.
If I need brain surgery, I want the MOST qualified surgeon I can find to dig around in my skull. I could care less what the racial or ethnic distribution of brain surgeons are in my city. We have morally and ethically lost our way as a society when the color of someone's skin, or their ethnic background, is a more compelling justification for hiring than competence and qualifications. *Especially* when there is no shortage of fully qualified applicants. IMO. $0.02.