Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
I think you have to go mixed in these kinds of cases, I don't think it necessarily has to be equal but each race should be represented. Look what happened with OJ - guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, piles of evidence against him, complete clear cut case… and he gets off because they proved to an almost all black jury that one of the detectives said "nigger" and expressed racist thoughts in an interview years prior, and therefore probably planted the evidence.

Race is a big thing, as much as we want to downplay it. There were only 3 black people on this jury (out of 15 or 16 people) and they still sent this guy away. That innate resentment in black people from the many years of being treated like shit by whitey can be manipulated.
Oj is one pin in a haystack to other thousand of other non-black right/wrong cases.

Its just an idea.

A chinese guy kills an indian, lets make the jury x 2 chinese, x2 indian, x2 white, x2 black.

Its just a thought as to how and why the jury is sometimes selected that way.

I think it should always be the best person for the job regardless of race, BUT why not make it all equal.

Makes sense