If you think of other issues, it’s not as strange as you would think. If someone is accused of speeding and goes to trial, or reckless manslaughter for a traffic accident, let’s say, the jury will be filled with drivers, most of whom break traffic laws on a daily basis.
As a result of this obvious impasse, the standard is not whether people have exposure to the general issue or the shitty system at hand. You can be sure the prosecution will pretend it is, and the defense will point out it’s not.
I’d argue that’s not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn’t really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It’s also not political - or at least, most people don’t see it that way.
My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don’t have the answer, but I can see why it’s evidently become a sticking point.
Everyone has a horse in the race, just like with breaking traffic laws. If I’m a juror on a speeding case, and I speed too, of course I’m likely to be sympathetic to the defendant. Similarly, what about cops investigating or testifying about DV when over 1/3 of them beat their families? There’s bias, but the “justice” system still operates.
Or we could look at the Google trials. Are we seriously thinking that no potential jurors would be able to have ever used use their services or products? … That all just doesn’t work. It’s nearly impossible to avoid Google. And your standard is even lower – you’re talking about exclusion based on use of competing companies in the field along with the company itself. In other words, I can’t be a juror on a Google case if I’ve used Google or Apple or Microsoft products…? That’s the parallel to the health insurance industry.
Of course that standard couldn’t possibly make sense, and legal scholars knew this centuries ago. So it’s not how the law works, and it never was.
If you think of other issues, it’s not as strange as you would think. If someone is accused of speeding and goes to trial, or reckless manslaughter for a traffic accident, let’s say, the jury will be filled with drivers, most of whom break traffic laws on a daily basis.
As a result of this obvious impasse, the standard is not whether people have exposure to the general issue or the shitty system at hand. You can be sure the prosecution will pretend it is, and the defense will point out it’s not.
I’d argue that’s not really equivalent, because being a driver or not doesn’t really have any implications towards motive in that case, or sympathy towards it from a jury. It’s also not political - or at least, most people don’t see it that way.
My point is, this is a race that almost every American has a horse in. So how do you draw a satisfactorily unbiased jury? I don’t have the answer, but I can see why it’s evidently become a sticking point.
Everyone has a horse in the race, just like with breaking traffic laws. If I’m a juror on a speeding case, and I speed too, of course I’m likely to be sympathetic to the defendant. Similarly, what about cops investigating or testifying about DV when over 1/3 of them beat their families? There’s bias, but the “justice” system still operates.
Or we could look at the Google trials. Are we seriously thinking that no potential jurors would be able to have ever used use their services or products? … That all just doesn’t work. It’s nearly impossible to avoid Google. And your standard is even lower – you’re talking about exclusion based on use of competing companies in the field along with the company itself. In other words, I can’t be a juror on a Google case if I’ve used Google or Apple or Microsoft products…? That’s the parallel to the health insurance industry.
Of course that standard couldn’t possibly make sense, and legal scholars knew this centuries ago. So it’s not how the law works, and it never was.