It seems like a prosecutor is going to try to win the case regardless of what color the defendant is. That his defendant is statistically disproportionately a black person seems to me to be more conclusive evidence that the system is unfair to blacks than that he strikes jurors that will increase his chances of convicting that person.

This is a good idea.

Well they'd both be a sign of an unfair system but let's not get too far away from you asking if prosecutors need to be ethical and/or fair.

Need was your word, not mine. I asked if it was their sworn duty.

It's possible that I'm mischaracterizing a trial as a no-holds-barred brawl between two opposing teams with a mediating third-party to make sure it is fair. It seems weird to me if the defense can use any tool necessary to win his case but the prosecutor is more limited. This is me being a law and order fish, so by all means correct my misconceptions.

Is something stopping you from googling this, rather than plaintively begging someone to spell it out for you?

Well hey, defense attorneys get to do whatever they want (never mind that's not even close to the truth) so who cares if prosecutors are unethical and the system is unfair to blacks? It just all kind of evens out, amirite??

I've been pretty amenable to persuasion in the last few posts. Probably would have completely flipped to your side of the argument if you guys were capable of civility. I guess I'll go about my racist day now.

"Well you guys had your chance to make me not a ****ty human being but you weren't nice enough about it"

Oh look, a moderator.

We almost had you on our side, dang!

Moving from 'what's the problem here?' to 'well is it even wrong for prosecutors to act unethically/unfairly so long as the get the blacks in jail?' really showed momentum in the right direction.

More accurate to say that in those posts you presented an unconvincing veneer of persuadability to make the fact that you were making up ludicrous justifications for racism with no basis in reality look like some sort of truth-seeking behavior rather than what it really is.

I'm really digging the "Don't let the lawyers see the jury" idea. Also can't let them know names or addresses.


I'm imagining lawyers coming up with all sorts of random seeming questions to try to suss out race and socioeconomic background.

Where'd you go to college? Howard? You're excused.

Can't just disagree. Can't just be ignorant to certain nuances of law and order. Must also be a vicious racist! Never mind that I agreed that the system is unfair to blacks. Never mind that I agreed with pvn's proposal of a blind selection. Everyone who contests your position simply must be a racist, and that is just that.

Vicious racist was your phrase, not mine.

"You are right, but you were mean. Therefore I will ignore you."

Solid logic.

All defendants tried by a prosecutor and jury and judge that is all their same race. Easy game.

Tried that for white defendants. Didn't work out as well as we might hope.

This is not accurate. I came to this thread with an inquisitive take right out of the gate...

... and was called a racist immediately by rjoefish in so many words.

This is a pretty vicious bit of prejudice against someone who was merely questioning the premise that the practice of jury selection as it exists is unfair. And it set the tone for the posts that followed.

I don't know if they were right. I certainly get a bit skeptical when someone embraces sophistry and personal attack to make his point. I do know that my opinions on this issue are not yet fully formed, and one of the main reasons I read and post in forums like this is to learn new things and to be persuaded. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to really be possible here. It seems that very few people here (huehuecoyotl? drawing blanks otherwise) are interested in persuading the other side of anything. Or of being persuaded about anything. Or even of engaging in a civil discussion of the issues.

People have an exceedingly vigorous interest, however, in demonizing the other. In making conclusive opinions about what an evil person he must be in spite of an overwhelming dearth of evidence to support that. In making broad brush assumptions about and attacking whatever his perceived group is, whether it be conservatives, libertarians, white people, old people, people from the south, or whatever. And since the environment is basically anonymous and practically un-moderated, there is really no social cost for such behavior and no apparent reason to stop doing it. Actually defending your position with logic is hard work, and not particularly rewarding. On the other hand, it feels good to **** on people you don't know and get your high fives from the echo chamber.

Have you googled prosecutorial ethical responsibilities yet?

LOL Renton

State's Attorney, police announce charges against city officer in shooting

He shot the dude in the dick.

dude must have been reaching for his waistband LDO

Should be an effective tool to break up peaceful protests, ie maintain "stability".

Cops bust in to the wrong house at night. Kill dog, shoot homeowner.

A+ work

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breakin...er-shot/nnT9R/


An officer was shot in the thigh but the police won't say whether the homeowner had a gun or not. Anyone want to take bets on all shots fired being from one officer who killed an innocent animal, shot an innocent homeowner, and shot his/her partner?

You would think when someone would ask "Are we sure we got the right house" before it escalated to that point.

http://www.newser.com/story/212171/c...ong-house.html

Cliffs:
-neighborhood resident called 911 to report a suspicious person and described a home to the dispatcher.
-cops show up at wrong place and enter thru open back door.
-dog killed, homeowner shot and cop shot.

Will they just use some of the "civil asset forfeiture" slush fund and pay them off?