They say, “We no longer exclude jurors based on race, gender, …” When they did do this, the purpose for doing so was to construct a jury that would be more favorable toward their case, thus enhancing their chances of winning. Today, that’s exactly what they continue to do. From the questions they ask jurors to the jury consultants (“jury choosing specialists”) they hire, the purpose is to construct a bias jury. With new techniques and a much deeper knowledge of psychology, they are even better than they were before at constructing a bias jury.
Now they no longer have to deal with odds –choosing a White person, rich person, etc. because the odds favor the fact that they’ll be more or less bias on certain issues — because they have a snapshot of each juror’s mind — their beliefs, likes, dislikes, desires, etc; and with this they know if, and almost exactly to what degree, each person will be bias on a certain issue. People are then dismissed from the jury, and some lie-of-an-excuse is given for their dismissal. And all of this is legal and practiced by both the prosecution and the defense. So, before a trial even begins, it’s the prosecutions ability to choose a partial jury, against the defense’s ability to choose a partial jury. What, is the idea to have two sides cheating against each other, and that’s supposed to cancel out the corruption and make it fair? This is the “justice” system, and there is legalized cheating?
Justice is not the majority. Justice means fairness. If it’s unfair, then it’s not justice/just. The only way to be fair is to reveal the truth, but just as everything with the government and country, the majority wins whether right or wrong –truth or lie. Even their most dependable tool, a lie detector test, is not 100% accurate, therefor is not the truth. (If you’re too nervous, you’re gone; even if you didn’t do it. It’s been proven to be faulty, but they don’t tell you that.) This shows that their idea of right/truth is the majority, and less than 100% is good enough.
Juries surely aren’t accurate. We all know that juries come to a quick decision over a case when they are tired or worn out. If one to a few jurors say “not guilty” while the rest of them say “guilty,” then the lone juror(s) face extreme pressure from being the outcast, and being “the one(s) who’s holding them up.” Because of the way it is set up, the minority voter(s) (not referring to race) is always pushed to conform to the majority voters. It’s a majority wins system. On top of that, most jurors don’t want to be there in the first place, they are made to go to jury duty. Do you know how that will taint a case? And with that, they don’t know a thing about law, since they’re regular people. The judicial system you have is idiotic, and there is no way these should be the conditions when dealing with jail/prison or death.
{Most of America thought the justice system was great and perfect until O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. This is also when they found out that a police officer would plant evidence in order to frame a Black person. And these are the people juries are made of. That’s scarey … if your Black.
Why Can’t Blacks Get Over Racism??? Because It’s Still Happening That’s Why!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxSiIcT4lvI
Why Can’t Blacks Get Over Racism??? Because It’s Still Happening That’s Why!!! Pt. 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgpmFzwUKpc
Conviction rates of black defendants drop if jury pool includes at least one black person
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/conviction-rates-black-defendants-drop-jury-pool-includes-black-person-article-1.1063188#ixzz1sfQWkq1J
Race and Jury Selection
http://eji.org/eji/raceandpoverty/juryselection}
Juries should be made up of discerning, unbiased, lie-experienced, highly knowledgeable individuals who want to be there and who know how to use analytical judgment; and preferably under age forty (lowers the chances they’ll be racist). This age limit should go for judges as well, and anyone in a position of power for that matter. Facts: If you already believe that someone is guilty more than you believe they are innocent (no matter the reason), then the questions and statements you say to yourself in your mind are going to be geared towards guilt–to the right. In most cases, you won’t even see that those same statements and questions you used are also proof that the person is innocent. You’re looking at it to the right, from the left, which means your back is turned to left–innocent.
Another thing: After being arrested, whether you are found guilty or not, it stays on your record. They then bring that up in court if you are arrested again for something else that you may or may not have done, and it will unknowingly affect the decisions of the jury, and judge. Do juries know these things? No. They’re just regular, flawed people who hold in their hands what is supposed to be justice. If your concern was for justice, why would you trust receiving fairness from the unfair?
{I could be on trial in a court room and have an angry expression on my face because I’m innocent and very angry at being accused; and because I had an angry look on my face, or was not crying and looking scared as they believe a falsely accused person would be, the judge and jury would see this and let this be part of their decision making process. They wouldn’t believe I was innocent because I didn’t “look innocent” or “act innocent.” How many innocent people have went to prison because of this exact circumstance?}
A lawyer’s job is to manipulate beliefs using pure deception in order to receive a desired outcome. Lawyers go through years of schooling, learning law and how to manipulate beliefs. Their level of manipulation can beat out the average everyday person’s understanding. They put regular everyday people in juries because regular everyday people’s minds can be manipulated by lawyers. In your courts, it’s not a battle for justice, which can only come about when the truth is revealed, it’s a battle of one lawyer’s manipulation against the others. The jury’s minds are the battlefield.
In other words, the only job of one side is to try their best to convince the jury that the person is guilty, whether they believe they are or not, and whether the person is or not; the only job of the other side is to try their best to convince the jury that the person is innocent, whether they believe they are or not, and whether the person is or not. And this is done by any means necessary. Having wins, not losses, on their record increases their desire to win at any cost. And because their intentions are to win, not justice, lying is no big deal; they even coach their clients on how to lie and deceive, even if their innocent. In the end, the greatest deceiver is called the best at his/her job (“the best lawyer in the state of …”).
{Many times, each lawyer calls their “expert” who is supposed to give the lawyer’s case more creditability/believability. These “experts” only agree with the lawyer’s case. Understand this: How could one “expert” say one thing, while another “expert” says another? If they are both “experts” in this one area, the same area, wouldn’t they come to the same conclusion? These people are only brought in to agree with one side’s case. Your whole “justice” system, just like life, is worthless without abiding by God’s laws. Your own greed, deceit, lies, partiality, etc. kill it, no matter what you do or how many years you work on it. It’s garbage.}
Judges and juries have the ability to give sentences and verdicts based on personal feelings, and you call that fair? You’ve heard judges say things like “I’m tired of you young people …” when trials were televised, right? Because the judge is tired of these young people … what type of decisions is that going to lead that judge to make? Hearing judges say that they were “tired of these young people …,” you know for a fact that personal feelings about age can come into play when judging. You think the same doesn’t happen with race? They feel the same way about race, but won’t voice it (they won’t say, “I’m tired of you Black people …” anymore). They’ll keep it in, but their decisions/actions will say it, as shown by statistics: Blacks make up 35% of arrest, 55% of convictions and 74% of those who received prison sentences for drugs. Judged by personal feelings. Oh, but it’s fair and true.
In order for justice to be justice, there can be no partiality. Partiality is unfair; unfair is unjust. There is partiality in your system yet you still call it justice. Cops, government officials, celebrities, the rich, and other “special people” get off when pulled over or tried in your court of law; this is known and accepted. And you say that you have justice? “Oh it’s you. Be more careful next time.” These “special people” even get special treatment on which and what kind of jail/prison they’re sentenced to, and how long, that is, if they’re even sentenced to jail/prison. This is favoritism, partiality, blatantly shown by your system. So, for a fact, you practice favoritism throughout your whole “justice” system. Yet you believe, or don’t want to believe, that no other favoritism goes on.
Fair and true?: In 1994, Blacks represented 43% of arrests, 54% of convictions, and 59% of prison admission for violent crimes. Partiality shows in the numbers. (After statistics of the 90’s started coming out, and people became outraged, the government said they would no longer release statistics by race. And they did just that.) And the “justice” system is supposed to be represented by a statue of a blindfolded woman holding scales, implying blind justice. That blindfold is obviously see-through.
{How can you claim to have justice, which is fairness, but the sentencing for the same crime varies from state to state? I wouldn’t doubt that in predominantly Black states, the sentences for certain crimes, probably what they would call a “minority crime,” are higher than in predominantly White states (or vice-versa, depending on which way they want to play it). If there was any fairness within the judicial system, how could you be seen by one judge and receive a certain sentence, and be seen by another judge in the same courtroom for the same crime and receive a different sentence? Is it mercy or injustice? If you add all of this so-called justice to the setup of ghettos and the so-called war on drugs, then you can see the obvious plot on minorities. And you thought that it was in minority people’s nature. If people were truly evil, or selling drugs, gang banging, and stealing was just their true identity, then why is it that when they get enough money to leave that environment, they are happy to? Why do they feel like they’re free when they do? This shows you that it’s not them, it’s a combination of situation and circumstances, which were created by others. No matter where they go in America they are surrounded by plots against them. What kind of life is that?}
The courts will convict someone just to set an example or to make up for the past (not based on the truth of the situation), and that’s supposed to be a good thing? You cause inequality to one thing, and then to make up for that, you cause inequality to another. You then keep going and going. If you don’t stick to fairness, the process will never stop. It’s like saying, “we’re going to let you off because we gave someone else too much time” or “we’re going to give you more time because we didn’t give someone else enough time.” Society looks at this and thinks they are only trying to make things right, but it’s a whole new person and situation. The only way to make it right is through the person who you got it wrong with.
Society thinks that it’s a good thing when judges want to “set an example,” but look into it. It’s been shown that it never works, and some judges use that as an excuse to give more time to those they don’t like, pump up their own image when the media is present, or to please society when the case is made public.
If the media presents a case to the public, then that person on trial might get the death penalty because the nation is watching. If you had the same case, but without the media presenting it to the public, then the person wouldn’t get the death penalty. And vice-versa. Whenever a case is in the public eye (the amount of coverage matters), they judge by what they believe society to be feeling. If too many movie stars have been getting off and society has been complaining, then they’ll convict the current accused movie star whose case is in the public eye, to please society, not for justice. If too many Whites have been getting off in cases where racism is involved and Blacks have been complaining too angrily and may riot, then they’ll convict the current White person whose case is in the public eye, to please blacks so they won’t riot, not for justice.
This sort of practice has always been going on, but everyone seems to believe that it’s okay. They do this all the time with cases involving race; they don’t want to seem racist when America is watching. They worry about their image and what people are thinking about them. All of this means that the media and society are affecting the ruling of something they are not in and know nothing about. If you let yourself be affected by others, then that’s clear evidence that you shouldn’t be judging, and yet nearly all courts do this.
{If the whole world said or wanted “guilty,” but the truth said “innocent,” then you’re supposed to go with “innocent.” That’s justice. You’re not suppose to care what others believe or desire. Your “justice” in your “justice” system is not based on justice, or the truth of the case, it’s based on many, many other things.}
If your “justice” system is seeking justice, why is that if you get off (are acquitted) on the crime you’re accused of, they’ll try to find other charges that they could get you on (convict you on)? That’s trying to get the person, not trying to get justice. Police officers do the same type of practice–searching for something that they could get you on (something decided on at their discretion). If your “justice” system is seeking justice, how in the world could evidence on a case be too late? If you are seeking justice, there is no way that evidence should be discarded because of time, no matter what new laws or practices you had to implement. But, because they’re scared to be looked at as wrong, along with many other reasons, they sentence innocent people and give too much of a sentence to those who are guilty of a lesser crime.
Continued on Page 5
