With all the talk about racism, I thought it would be worthwhile to develop a test to determine whether a particular action is racist. Here are two situations:
1. A man is convicted of murder based upon a confession that he gave to police but later recanted. He appeals the conviction but it is upheld in every appeal. After serving time in prison, his lawyers file a new appeal. This time they claim that the prosecutors tried during jury selection to keep the jury with as few black members as possible. (The convicted murderer is black.) The claim of the lawyers is that the defendant could not get a fair trial with few or no blacks on the jury.
2. A defendant in a civil case is well known for strong political views against illegal immigration that have offended many (but not all) people of Mexican origin. The judge in the case is of Mexican origin and belongs to a group that provides assistance to illegal aliens. After some rulings by the judge that go against the defendant, he says that the judge is biased against him.
So which is a manifestation of racism? Neither, one or both? Maybe it would help if you heard the result of each situation. In the first, a federal court ruled that it is improper and even unconstitutional for the prosecutors to try to keep blacks off the jury of this black defendant. Those jurors are needed because without them the jury could be biased against the defendant. There is nothing to indicate actual bias, but the federal court rules that the conviction must be overturned. The decision is affirmed on appeal. In the second situation, there is an uproar because the defendant in that case said that the judge is biased based upon his Mexican heritage, his involvement assisting illegal aliens and his actual rulings. That's racism according to the pundits.
Both of these are actual cases. A jury that has too few blacks is biased, but a judge who is Mexican cannot be biased -- or so says the media and the pundits. Do you see the difference? There is a clear difference. The defendant in the second, civil case is Donald Trump, and this gives the media a great chance to attack Trump; it also gives the Democrats a chance to try to label Trump a racist.
I don't know if Trump's judge is biased or not. I do know, however, that many judges are biased and frequently that bias stems from the judge's background.
1. A man is convicted of murder based upon a confession that he gave to police but later recanted. He appeals the conviction but it is upheld in every appeal. After serving time in prison, his lawyers file a new appeal. This time they claim that the prosecutors tried during jury selection to keep the jury with as few black members as possible. (The convicted murderer is black.) The claim of the lawyers is that the defendant could not get a fair trial with few or no blacks on the jury.
2. A defendant in a civil case is well known for strong political views against illegal immigration that have offended many (but not all) people of Mexican origin. The judge in the case is of Mexican origin and belongs to a group that provides assistance to illegal aliens. After some rulings by the judge that go against the defendant, he says that the judge is biased against him.
So which is a manifestation of racism? Neither, one or both? Maybe it would help if you heard the result of each situation. In the first, a federal court ruled that it is improper and even unconstitutional for the prosecutors to try to keep blacks off the jury of this black defendant. Those jurors are needed because without them the jury could be biased against the defendant. There is nothing to indicate actual bias, but the federal court rules that the conviction must be overturned. The decision is affirmed on appeal. In the second situation, there is an uproar because the defendant in that case said that the judge is biased based upon his Mexican heritage, his involvement assisting illegal aliens and his actual rulings. That's racism according to the pundits.
Both of these are actual cases. A jury that has too few blacks is biased, but a judge who is Mexican cannot be biased -- or so says the media and the pundits. Do you see the difference? There is a clear difference. The defendant in the second, civil case is Donald Trump, and this gives the media a great chance to attack Trump; it also gives the Democrats a chance to try to label Trump a racist.
I don't know if Trump's judge is biased or not. I do know, however, that many judges are biased and frequently that bias stems from the judge's background.
No comments:
Post a Comment