(no subject)

[rymenhild]

From the New York Times, here:

The convictions of dozens of death-row inmates in California are coming under legal scrutiny because of accusations that Jews and black women were excluded from juries in capital trials in Alameda County as "standard practice."

I will never consider skipping my jury duty again.

Comments

[scazon.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with the Enraged. That…makes the blood boil. And to think that we Jews like to believe that discrimination against us has ended in this country.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

It's a very odd kind of discrimination. As fleurdelis28 said below, it's not so much that the prosecutors don't like Jews and more that the prosecutors don't think Jews will support their goals to expose the sentenced to the maximum possible punishment. In other words, the prosecutors believe that their political aims and Jewish political aims conflict. This clearly involves a problem with the maintenance of the division between church and state. It does not precisely reflect unwillingness to let Jews perform civic duty, though.

I wonder why it is that Jews are expected to be for stem-cell research, less unfriendly to abortion than Christians, and against the death penalty. Maybe it's because Judaism places much more value on people who are already living than on the potential for life in the future.

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

Well, they were excluding Jews because they believed they would be inherently disinclined to sentence anyone to death in a gas chamber. It's a questionable assumption and a bad policy for selecting juries, but I'm not sure it says anything specifically insulting about the Jews. Especially seeing as the reasoning seems to be based on recent history rather than any assumptions about inherent inclinations (not even 'those Jews are a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals').

I'm more disturbed by the idea of omitting from juries people you think are likely to be opposed to the death penalty, which is (I think) a real matter of controversy. The fact that the criteria used in this instance to determine whether someone would be disinclined to impose a death sentence happen to have been ridiculously overbroad and bizarre is more of a side note.

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

To make the previous comment coherent, ignore the "inherently" in the first sentence.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

But don't they ask you questions when you show up for jury duty, like "This is a death penalty case, do you feel you would be able to sentence someone to death (in a gas chamber) should they be proved guilty?" Excluding people from juries based on assumptions about their backgrounds is exactly what they aren't supposed to do.

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes. I was just saying that this wasn't the world's most offensive set of assumptions -- that doesn't excuse their making them. I don't think it says much one way or another about antisemitism in America, though. In this case, I'm much more offended on behalf of the judicial system.

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Ah, that makes sense.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

There are indeed many more useful ways to determine whether a person would be willing to impose the death penalty than by a broad generalization about the person's background. I know I have Jewish relatives who are for the death penalty.

[elettaria.livejournal.com]

Also, if you were raised in a country which does not have the death penalty, you are highly unlikely to be in favour of it. I'm English, and I can't imagine living in a society where the death penalty existed. No idea what the US policy is on jury service for immigrants, though.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on all points.

I don't have an exceedingly Jewish last name, but I am a graduate student at a famously left-wing institution in Alameda County. I wonder if the prosecutors in question discriminate against students? I would expect that the vast majority of my fellow students and academics here are against the death penalty.

[silveraspen]

AUGH. No. Just, no. That is so very, very wrong.

Granted, I'm more familiar than I'd like to be with the process of jury selection and attempting to challenge appropriately in order to get the best possible jury for your side of whatever case (and this from both sides even, as well as having served as a jury foreperson now)... but the key word there is "appropriately." Challenge for real cause, not otherwise, please. *sigh*

Two things jumped out at me in this article -- one, that the judge would make such statements, and two, that the attorneys would AGREE that it was a "good" idea.

And the weirdest bit...

[(Anonymous)]

the judge was Jewish!!! And anti-death penalty, say his sons!