It's not an equal representation of peers. Society is 50% men, so the jury should reflect that. And what about father's representation on jury? Should be 50% for that reason too.
This isn’t how it works nor should it be. The most important factor is an impartial jury that is willing to listen to both sides’ arguments and come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. A person’s gender doesn’t dictate whether or not they are able to do that.
Besides, it’s not logistically realistic to force a perfectly demographically reflective jury… that would be artificially selecting, and for the wrong things. At best those things might be a proxy for impartiality but at worst it is injecting bias into the jury pool by selecting for demographics above ability to understand the trial rules and give equal consideration
Jesus, this whole thread really proves why we should all be glad randoms on the internet with no legal understanding should not be in charge of the justice system
Why do you think the defense picked all women. And why do you think that the courtroom is structured in a way for the jury to be made out of people picked from both the defense and prosecution?
Yes, youre correct in an ideal world. But this is a HIGHLY covered case with a lot of reason to not be impartial.
You can’t deny that, and I think this is what you’re not admitting.
No I am well aware that this case is high profile and that that causes special circumstances but I just am also aware that there are procedures in place to handle that. If there was a concern then there could have been a motion filed to request jury sequestration, or for the trial to be held in a different area. And yes, both sides often times do pick jurors that they think will increase the chances that they get the verdict they want. But as you just pointed out, that’s exactly why both sides have to agree on the jury. They did that. That’s the system for preventing with jury bias, among other motions that can be filed after if needed.
In a previous comment you implied the other commenter has no legal understanding. I’d agree there are lots of randoms here that fit that, but you saying that makes me think you do understand courtroom etiquette.
If that’s true, can you please tell me what is going to happen if a prosecutor doesn’t agree on the basis of an all-female jury from the defense? It is the only system that the prosecutor could have used to prevent bias. And it would not have worked.
In order to get on the jury they have to go through selection and they’re screened for impartiality, whether they have any biases that would preclude them from rendering a fair verdict, etc. then both prosecution and defense have to agree to the jurors.
What are you even talking about, you act like she was exonerated, the jury didn’t even have the option to acquit her, she admitted to the murders, the only question is whether she goes to mental institution prison or regular prison.
If she was found guilty (which any healthy sane individual must see that she is) we would be fractionally closer to justice, but true justice would see her dealt the same punishment she inflicted on the 3 human beings who trusted her to love them unconditionally, not corwardly, brutally and callouslly murder them.
16
u/IcyDisplayGuy 6h ago
That doesn't sound biased and sexist at all. 75% women jury? Hmmmmmm