Jury's don't work anymore. People convict on feelings.

Judges are equally corrupt and often emotional and agenda driven so judge only courtrooms wouldn't solve the problem either.

But basically if I was in a derek chauvin situation and there were a few black people and women, I'd be like, "good bye freedom."

As razorfist points out jury of your peers means they ought to be more inclined towards you and your general way than against.

If people who have no vested interest in convicting you still convict you over overwhelming evidence then the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria has been much closer to satisfied.

A conservative white guy should have conservative white guys as his peers.

The only problem is conservative white guys will be the only ones seeking justice regardless of any other factors.

If a ghetto black guy has a jury of ghetto black types, that gang banger is getting declared innocent every single time.

My opinion of a potential way that would have closer to blind justice.

Remove all names, remove the ability for lawyers to make emotion appeal based arguments, don't let anyone see or know who the accused is.

Prosecutors present "subject a is accused of perpetuating x crime against victims b. Remove the skin color and name and sex of victims.

The jury is only allowed to wrestle with the facts of the case.

They don't know if the perpetrator is white, black, Muslim, Asian, etc.

Only after they hand down the verdict do details of the case be revealed.

Now people could get pretty good at guessing based on the nature of the crimes but they could never be 100% sure.

And without emotional arguments being allowed to be used, the juries would just go "I guess this points to scenario a over scenario b so we'll declare innocent or guilty depending on what the facts say.

When you can be sentenced for being the wrong skin color or political alignment. And being at the wrong place at the wrong time, yeah activist juries are worse than a bad judge in some cases.

That's why all parties identification should be off the table. Hate crime was basically let's make white people have harsher sentences to "balance the scales". That's not blind justice.

If the crime is murder then follow the evidence, not the emotion or the narrative, likewise for every other crime.

Jury's don't work anymore. People convict on feelings.

Judges are equally corrupt and often emotional and agenda driven so judge only courtrooms wouldn't solve the problem either.

But basically if I was in a derek chauvin situation and there were a few black people and women, I'd be like, "good bye freedom."

As razorfist points out jury of your peers means they ought to be more inclined towards you and your general way than against.

If people who have no vested interest in convicting you still convict you over overwhelming evidence then the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria has been much closer to satisfied.

A conservative white guy should have conservative white guys as his peers.

The only problem is conservative white guys will be the only ones seeking justice regardless of any other factors.

If a ghetto black guy has a jury of ghetto black types, that gang banger is getting declared innocent every single time.

My opinion that would have blind justice.

Remove all names, remove the ability for lawyers to make emotion appeal based arguments, don't let anyone see or know who the accused is.

Prosecutors present "subject a is accused of perpetuating x crime against victims b. Remove the skin color and name and sex of victims.

The jury is only allowed to wrestle with the facts of the case.

They don't know if the perpetrator is white, black, Muslim, Asian, etc.

Only after they hand down the verdict do details of the case be revealed.

Now people could get pretty good at guessing based on the nature of the crimes but they could never be 100% sure.

And without emotional arguments being allowed to be used, the juries would just go "I guess this points to scenario a over scenario b so we'll declare innocent or guilty depending on what the facts say.

When you can be sentenced for being the wrong skin color or political alignment. And being at the wrong place at the wrong time, yeah activist juries are worse than a bad judge in some cases.

That's why all parties identification should be off the table. Hate crime was basically let's make white people have harsher sentences to "balance the scales". That's not blind justice.

If the crime is murder then follow the evidence, not the emotion or the narrative, likewise for every other crime.

Jury's don't work anymore. People convict on feelings.

Judges are equally corrupt and often emotional and agenda driven so judge only courtrooms wouldn't solve the problem.

But basically if I was in a dark chauvin situation.and there were a few black people and women, I'd be like, good bye freedom.

As razorfist points out jury of your peers means they ought to be more inclined towards your way than against.

If people who have no vested interest in convicting you still convict you over overwhelming evidence then the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria has been much closer to satisfied.

A conservative white guy should have conservative white guys as his peers.

The only problem is conservative white guys will be the only ones seeking justice regardless of any other factors.

If a ghetto black guy has a jury of ghetto black types, that gang banger is getting declared innocent every single time.