new thread
LadyScribe sent me the URL for a page describing whether a potential juror should be excluded because of his long, unkempt hair and beard. Without commenting on it yet, I present it here for discussion.
Cornell University law library discussion on long hair discrimination
ahhh the dubious 'wisdom' of judging one incapable of being impartial because the length of his mane... what a 'hair-brained' notion. it seems to be a clear-cut case of discrimination... but the courts seem to have difficulty concurring- this frightens me- that those highest paid to render judgement are incapable of fingering such obvious boorishness on the part of the prosecuter. does all this mean that if i'm ever charged with a crime, (me) getting a haircut will affect how judges & prosecuters view the evidence? i file a motion of haireas clippus.
on the other hand, if my hair will get me excused from jury duty- great!
*****************************************************************
Yes, and defense attorneys regularly advise their accused clients to get a "proper" hair-cut so as to decrease the probability of unfavorable treatment by judge and jury. This goes with the "proper" business suit et al.
But don't blame the defense lawyers. They're just trying to reduce the
probability of a conviction for their clients. That's why they're paid the big bucks if they're private, and the pennies if they're public defenders.
OM
I just skimmed the article, but I think you are misrepresenting things somewhat. It was an attorney who was demonstrating the discrimination, not the judge.
Don't forget the role of the judge. His job is to make rulings based upon laws at his disposal. If the law is lacking, don't fault the judge.
You know, this attitude amazes me sometimes. It seems to be fairly universal. What puzzles me though is that while everyone seems to be reluctant to serve on jury duty, if those same people were indicted for something, they'd take it for granted that they could count on a jury of their peers. To me this is a stark contradiction, or perhaps just hypocricy.
i stand corrected... it WAS the prosecuting attorney. i think what amazed me was the apparent difficulty that the appeals process was having in deciding whether or not the objection constituted discrimination- and that the law provides for an attorney to strike a juror for no reason.
perhaps i'm wrong- but can't the judge use discretion where the law is either vague or lacking?
be amazed if you like, but i'm not convinced the jury system works... when i see many of the people around me as potential jurors, it frightens me. i'm not sure i can even be a good juror in many cases- especially if the arrest made all the area news and i know about it. if i was called for jury duty, i WOULD serve- reluctantly; i'd rather not be called in the first place. if that makes me a hypocrite then so be it.
A lot of people complain about the poor judgments that are rendered. The court system here is criticized a lot. However, in my personal exposure to the legal system, as a witness and a principle, I've been very pleased at the way it worked. I think that on the whole it works very well and is the envy of almost all other countries. If I were able to make a change, it would be to empower the court to have their own agent to be nonpartisan. With the current system, there is only prosecution and defense. There should also be a neutral third party.
I have more to say, but we've drifted quite a bit off topic now. If you'd like to continue, let's do so by email.
Gawd I sure hope so! However, don't hold your breath. Like the baby boomer's before them, the X-ers will grow it back and revert to natural color just in time to run for judicial office.
It is not inconceivable that attorneys may, in some unusual cases, seek out jurors with mohawks, however. Consider the selection of a jury for famed Savings and Loan Shark Charles Keating. If one was trying to convict an establishment character of fraud and sleaze, wouldn't it make sense--given our unreliable but inevitable prejudices--to select a juror with a mohawk?
It all depends upon what axe one is trying to grind.
I was not dismissed from jury service as a result of my long hair. In this day and age, smart lawyers know it is not a good idea to draw snap conclusions from the appearance of anyone. Such errors can come back and haunt you in the most unpredictable ways.
I don't have time to check all the details of the case, but if they got the jurors excluded, than if a defendant or plaintiff doesn't wear a suit and tie, then maybe his lawyer can have all the people with suits and ties excluded from the jury. ... soon there would be nobody left on the jury.
The problem for minorities is that each legal team generally gets a set number of "challenges", which they can use to blackball just about anyone they want. A team cannot use the challenges to wipe out a majority because, once the team's challenges are exhausted, the jury box will be filled mostly with the people they were trying to eliminate. Meanwhile, the team trying to eliminate a minority can be wholly successful, because the jury will be filled with majority people before their challenges are exhausted.
This mathematical reality makes it impossible for anyone in a minority to ever get a trial "by a jury of his peers". What the math says is, "Longhair, you will never see a jury in your case comprised of other longhairs." Opposing attorneys almost always use their challenges to rid the jury of people similar to the other side, so you'll be lucky to see any longhairs on your jury at all.
Trial by a judge, though, can be worse for a minority guy, because judges are generally political appointees and are more "mainstream" than a group of twelve ordinary people snatched off the street. So its a choice between the frying pan and the fire, and just one more way that being a member of a minority is tough. But forsaking one's identity is tougher, or we wouldn't have any minorities other than racial ones, at all.
So all one who is proud of his identity can do is hold his longhaired head high, and hope that his self-confidence will win over people whom a mainstream-looking, but sulking, beaten man would lose....
Bill
Another thing that would help us longhairs get more power is to encourage more longhairs to vote. When I go to vote, it seems a larger percentage of people voting are conservatives with short hair, more so than the general population. If more longhairs vote, we'd get better representation.
FWIW, I served as a jurur in Seattle recently. I was the only long-haired man in the room of potential jurors for them to choose from. I was a bit surprised to be chosen.
Not that this had anything to do with my hair, but it seems to have been a mistake for the defense attorney to let me serve. All of use jurors were leaning toward acquittal, because there was technically a teeny bit of reasonable doubt even though we all felt certain that the defendant had committed the crime -- beaten up his girlfriend. Suddenly something occurred to me that eliminated not only all reasonable doubt, but virtually all doubt of any kind. I explained it to the other jurors, and within a few minutes we had voted unanimously to convict.
What none of us jurors understood was why the prosecuting attorney never suggested it herself. I was quite underwhelmed by both attorneys; I think the two of them may have been the dimmest bulbs in the room.
8-)
Greg