For some years now I’ve been pointing out, given that there appears to be issues with empaneling any jury to sit in judgment (at least in any serious matter) of a black defendant that does not include black jurors, and that it only takes one juror to prevent conviction **, that it seems logical given conviction rates that black jurors are MORE likely to vote to convict, not less.
Which is to say: you cannot get these conviction rates without blacks being perfectly fine with locking them up when it’s actually them you are asking in some official manner.
So what does this do to the whole diatribe about the rate of blacks being convicted bring racism?
As with the laws that are frequently violated being tweaked by the demands of black communities wanting to government to deal with those who prey upon them I’m guessing it undermines it ... a lot.
But rhetoric is not practice: what a person may rile against in theory and what they may do when they are responsible, when they are considering the actual wrongs done, are two entirely separate things.
And defense lawyers just don’t seem to get it.
** mistrials etc are other matters
Blacks cheered with OJ was acquitted. It was shocking when I discovered this. So, no criminality and guilt are not important anymore. BTW, they knew OJ was guilty.
It was about race and nothing else mattered. It was about revenge and evening the score for all of those years of injustice and probably slavery.