A faceless court...

[fli]

Okay...

O.J.
Duke...

Need I more to say?

Race is a huge factor. While I know things are better than 50 years ago, but I am not all that naive to think we don't have a racial tensions. More Blacks get jail time than their White counterparts, how often we heard that? And how often do we hear that more Blacks do crimes than Whites? And the other things.

So i thought about...
We can make justice literally blind. Jury and judge don't need to know the defendant is any color. All he needs to be designated is a name: "Mr. X."

The defendent don't need to be at his or her proceedings-- there's TVs and stuff. He or she can be a room next door (or even behind curtains.)

I can totally imagine a court proceeding being like a fourm like this one... one side give their arguments and stuff. Even in chat.

A faceless court. I think this is a way where we can factor out races...

[stafffighter]

This could counteract the fundimental right to face onces accuser. Plus it would make tesimony and on the spot counsle next to impossible.

[qaz-qaz]

I think O.J proved that the Juries ARE blind to race. The black man got let off, remember?

[HighlyIllogical]

According to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri als/Simpson/Jurypage.html, the jury in the OJ trial had 9 African-Americans, 1 Hispanic and 2 Caucasians. What does that prove about the blindness of justice?

[Proteas]

At 6/19/07 08:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: What does that prove about the blindness of justice?

Unless they were all retired former football players who were part of an inter-racial marriage and had a shitload of cash to live off of, not much.

Jury of your peers my ass.

[stafffighter]

At 6/19/07 08:46 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: According to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftri als/Simpson/Jurypage.html, the jury in the OJ trial had 9 African-Americans, 1 Hispanic and 2 Caucasians. What does that prove about the blindness of justice?

That if you're rich enough anyone can be white?

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/19/07 10:02 PM, Proteas wrote: Jury of your peers my ass.

And there we go.

Fli's idea makes quite a bit of sense, in many ways, but, still, I dunno about the logistics of it.

[stafffighter]

Frankly I don't see how this is possible. Along with the right to face ones accurer pretty much requiring both of them to be out in the open there's also the matter of testemony. When you hear someones voice there is usually a hint as to what race they are. This could be sidetracked through technological means but then you'd have to go into the inherent inability to trust machines.

[Demosthenez]

It is definately a good idea, not sure how it would work out. staff brings up a good point about the accent of a person, not everyone can or will talk like a midwestern white male in court. And another thing to think about would be the friends who would be brought to court, would probably give away the race of said person away also. All white friends, probably safe to say he is white. All black friends, safe to say he is black. Unless they got the hidden treatment also.

Definately a good idea however. But good ideas dont get implemented in the government, remember :P

[stafffighter]

Well if friends would probably reveal your race then your family definatly would.
On top of all this you'd have to be 100% sure nothing about the events had reached the news. Freedom of the press could become a very real issue.

[ForkRobotik]

At 6/19/07 10:56 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I think they should move cases to locations far from the incident.

I think this is a bad idea. Trying a black man in a thumper state is always a bad idea.

I think there should be no juries. There should be a panel of 3 judges. The 3 judges all have to agree on the verdict. Also, the 3 judges should be appointed equally by the prosecution and the defense from a list, which shows the judges history and experience.

[Ravariel]

Victim, defendant, and witness testimony would be difficult to keep race non-specific at best. And they are the cornerstone of any trial. It may be an ideal to work towards, but I think, much like any ideal, it will never be reachable.

[fli]

At 6/19/07 10:45 PM, Demosthenez wrote: It is definately a good idea, not sure how it would work out. staff brings up a good point about the accent of a person, not everyone can or will talk like a midwestern white male in court. And another thing to think about would be the friends who would be brought to court, would probably give away the race of said person away also. All white friends, probably safe to say he is white. All black friends, safe to say he is black. Unless they got the hidden treatment also.

Definately a good idea however. But good ideas dont get implemented in the government, remember :P

Well...
How do you know how I talk right now?
I have an distinguishable accent.

but you wouldn't know it by reading my words.

An on-line court would be the next wave of technology in my opinion...

You know, I would like to make this experiment again...
Take the OJ case, but this time... recast the whole characters so that "Mr. X" has supposedly murdered "Mrs. Y"--

Take this to several groups of people and present the same evidence (and tweak it so that the race isn't shown in any way or manner) and watch how a judge, jury, and lawyers react and respond.

Everything on paper...

[stafffighter]

At 6/20/07 06:04 AM, fli wrote:

Well...
How do you know how I talk right now?
I have an distinguishable accent.

but you wouldn't know it by reading my words.

While technically that is true you have to factor in wether or not people would trust the testemony coming from a non-human source. There's no way to know the truth of what's being said or who's saying it so how could I make life or death judgments based on that?

[ShardStorm]

What about trials for racial hate crimes?

[MortifiedPenguins]

I know that would actually be questionable and illegal in current law books.

I forget what laws, statues or ethics that it breaks, but I'll grab them after work. I just remeber something about this.