Jury Duty: Do We Need To Do A Better Job With Selection?
Jury Duty: Do We Need To Do A Better Job With Selection?
Recently, we've had many controversial cases making headlines for their verdicts. Most sensible people are disagreeing with them (see: Trayvon Martin case and Michel Dunn trial). Recently a juror from Michael Dunn's trial has spoken out saying that she just wanted "justice". "Justice for whoever". For whoever?! Girl what?
Frankly, I am sick of these uneducated, weak minded people being selected for such serious cases. She also stated that while she felt he was guilty of murder, she felt that the partial verdict was the way to go since they couldn't reach a unanimous decision. Meaning: I just went with this since the others wouldn't agree with me.
And just look at her She isn't well spoken, she can barely get a sentence out and seems like she just doesn't know what's going on, where she is and why she's there.
I am also baffled by the fact that we're continuing to have all white panels on interracial cases (see: George Zimmerman). And then when they decide to put a black person on the case, they have somebody like that
I mean we have really got to get it together.
Selecting people by random clearly is not working.
What are your thoughts?
Girl what?
