This article was nominated for deletion on September 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
While systematic exclusion was addressed by Norris v. Alabama, it wasn't until Batson v. Kentucky that the Court dealt with the problem of use of peremptory challenges producing an all-white jury in any particular case. As a number of the examples show, all-white juries remained a problem after Norris both because it was effectively ignored in many jurisdictions and because the burden of proving systematic exclusion was set so high. The Batson article should provide some sources and I hope to get back to this, but anyone else is welcome to add the info. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is is George Zimmerman listed in acquittal of whites defendants? Isn't he hispanic? Is it appropriate to consider him white for the purposes of this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to remove it earlier, and recommended the page for temp protection, but apparently it didn't receive any. Zimmerman is neither white, nor the jury in his case all-white, he does not fit the description of anything pertaining to this article. 97.89.17.164 ( talk) 06:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The jury was composed of five people known to be white and one token Hispanic, with no African-American jurors. Of course, in the State of Florida, a white Cuban, who often is more culturally white than Latino and as a class has been historically dominant over Afro-Cubans within Cuba and African-Americans in Miami-Dade County (see article from Discover Magazine, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-case-of-the-white-cubans/), could be considered Hispanic. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the identity of this juror is. I would recommend inclusion, but with this caveat. Also, if you put George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin side-by-side, you could be forgiven for not seeing the "Hispanic" features on him. Furthermore, his father is white. The only people I see calling him a Hispanic or half-Hispanic are people who subscribe to the one-drop rule anyways. DevilInPgh ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that the title of this article - "All-white jury" is inherently racist. The implication is that only all-white (not "all-black" or "all-Hispanic") juries produce biased results. Even the lead reference, from Scientific American, which uses that provocative term in the title of its article, then goes on to say that the subject is actually about "homogeneous juries" vs. diverse juries. There is nothing in this article which supports the notion that all-white juries demonstrate any more bias than all-black juries. Racially homogeneous juries would be the better, neutral, term for this article. Gulbenk ( talk) 15:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion originally took place on the Talk page of user Malik Shabazz and is re-posted here in order to solicit additional comments and serve notice of potential revisions and a proposed name change, if the expanded discussion points in that direction. All interested parties are asked to share their views. Gulbenk ( talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Content revision will continue, in order to conform this article to the single topic of discrimination in juror selection. At some point, the article should be retitled to reflect those changes. Additional comments on that subject are needed. Gulbenk ( talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Malik, I have waited for IronDome's input, but it looks like he may have lost interest in this issue. I would like to resume my edits to this article, but I don't want to appear to be breaking my pledge to wait for third party input. Your suggestions? Gulbenk ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, what's the status on these proposed changes? At the moment, this phrase only appears in one of the provided sources and the rest of the article appears to be stitched together from other topics. Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be re-named "All same-race jury" since the lead does not specifically summarize all-white juries and implies that any jury composed of people from a single racial group may be biased?
The title as it is violates WP:NPOV because it implies that only all-white juries will convict based upon racial bias. 47.137.183.192 ( talk) 04:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Racial discrimination in jury selection has a long history in the United States.If this implies something about all-white juries, that's not necessarily a problem with neutrality, because that implication is backed up by history and sources. If you can find a reliable source which discusses "all-back juries", or even which discusses all same-race juries in general, I would be interested in seeing that. Most sources which discuss this as an actual occurrence discuss all-white juries, regardless of how they phrase it. It looks like the phrase "all-black jury" was used as a test-phrase to understand how people react to the phrase, not as an example of the issues with racial discrimination in jury selection. I This distinction should be made clear, otherwise this just seems like more false balance. Grayfell ( talk) 05:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a surprise that racially homogenous juries are legal, the legislation of the racial makeup of any body of individuals violates the 14th ammendment to the constitution. it's pretty bizarre that this article even exists in its current state because it relies on people that have no concept of jurisprudence arguing that the law needs to take race into account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.138 ( talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The edits of 10 May 2023 removed the credit to Rebecca Saxe for the observation that a racially homogeneous jury may create a perception of unfairness. Is the fact that this is her opinion relevant, given that this is published in a reliable source? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that this enables the reader to find out more about the person who is responsible for publishing this observation. I'm leaving it alone for now, but I am soliciting other's opinions. If I don't see a compelling reason to omit the credit, I intend to reinstate it. (As an aside, I wonder if the perception of fairness of juries wouldn't generally be improved by seeking heterogeneity among various pertinent dimensions.) Fabrickator ( talk) 08:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on September 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
While systematic exclusion was addressed by Norris v. Alabama, it wasn't until Batson v. Kentucky that the Court dealt with the problem of use of peremptory challenges producing an all-white jury in any particular case. As a number of the examples show, all-white juries remained a problem after Norris both because it was effectively ignored in many jurisdictions and because the burden of proving systematic exclusion was set so high. The Batson article should provide some sources and I hope to get back to this, but anyone else is welcome to add the info. Abby Kelleyite ( talk) 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is is George Zimmerman listed in acquittal of whites defendants? Isn't he hispanic? Is it appropriate to consider him white for the purposes of this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.234.49 ( talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried to remove it earlier, and recommended the page for temp protection, but apparently it didn't receive any. Zimmerman is neither white, nor the jury in his case all-white, he does not fit the description of anything pertaining to this article. 97.89.17.164 ( talk) 06:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The jury was composed of five people known to be white and one token Hispanic, with no African-American jurors. Of course, in the State of Florida, a white Cuban, who often is more culturally white than Latino and as a class has been historically dominant over Afro-Cubans within Cuba and African-Americans in Miami-Dade County (see article from Discover Magazine, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-case-of-the-white-cubans/), could be considered Hispanic. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the identity of this juror is. I would recommend inclusion, but with this caveat. Also, if you put George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin side-by-side, you could be forgiven for not seeing the "Hispanic" features on him. Furthermore, his father is white. The only people I see calling him a Hispanic or half-Hispanic are people who subscribe to the one-drop rule anyways. DevilInPgh ( talk) 19:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that the title of this article - "All-white jury" is inherently racist. The implication is that only all-white (not "all-black" or "all-Hispanic") juries produce biased results. Even the lead reference, from Scientific American, which uses that provocative term in the title of its article, then goes on to say that the subject is actually about "homogeneous juries" vs. diverse juries. There is nothing in this article which supports the notion that all-white juries demonstrate any more bias than all-black juries. Racially homogeneous juries would be the better, neutral, term for this article. Gulbenk ( talk) 15:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion originally took place on the Talk page of user Malik Shabazz and is re-posted here in order to solicit additional comments and serve notice of potential revisions and a proposed name change, if the expanded discussion points in that direction. All interested parties are asked to share their views. Gulbenk ( talk) 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Content revision will continue, in order to conform this article to the single topic of discrimination in juror selection. At some point, the article should be retitled to reflect those changes. Additional comments on that subject are needed. Gulbenk ( talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Malik, I have waited for IronDome's input, but it looks like he may have lost interest in this issue. I would like to resume my edits to this article, but I don't want to appear to be breaking my pledge to wait for third party input. Your suggestions? Gulbenk ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, what's the status on these proposed changes? At the moment, this phrase only appears in one of the provided sources and the rest of the article appears to be stitched together from other topics. Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be re-named "All same-race jury" since the lead does not specifically summarize all-white juries and implies that any jury composed of people from a single racial group may be biased?
The title as it is violates WP:NPOV because it implies that only all-white juries will convict based upon racial bias. 47.137.183.192 ( talk) 04:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Racial discrimination in jury selection has a long history in the United States.If this implies something about all-white juries, that's not necessarily a problem with neutrality, because that implication is backed up by history and sources. If you can find a reliable source which discusses "all-back juries", or even which discusses all same-race juries in general, I would be interested in seeing that. Most sources which discuss this as an actual occurrence discuss all-white juries, regardless of how they phrase it. It looks like the phrase "all-black jury" was used as a test-phrase to understand how people react to the phrase, not as an example of the issues with racial discrimination in jury selection. I This distinction should be made clear, otherwise this just seems like more false balance. Grayfell ( talk) 05:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a surprise that racially homogenous juries are legal, the legislation of the racial makeup of any body of individuals violates the 14th ammendment to the constitution. it's pretty bizarre that this article even exists in its current state because it relies on people that have no concept of jurisprudence arguing that the law needs to take race into account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.102.138 ( talk) 01:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The edits of 10 May 2023 removed the credit to Rebecca Saxe for the observation that a racially homogeneous jury may create a perception of unfairness. Is the fact that this is her opinion relevant, given that this is published in a reliable source? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that this enables the reader to find out more about the person who is responsible for publishing this observation. I'm leaving it alone for now, but I am soliciting other's opinions. If I don't see a compelling reason to omit the credit, I intend to reinstate it. (As an aside, I wonder if the perception of fairness of juries wouldn't generally be improved by seeking heterogeneity among various pertinent dimensions.) Fabrickator ( talk) 08:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)