Discrimination is unjust

However, this seemingly compelling argument that discrimination conflicts with the right to a fair trial is flawed, for the following reasons. Firstly, the thought experiment my opponent has drafted is unsound. A prosecutor will never bring to trial a case in which there is "not necessary enough [evidence] to convict the man" (for it reflects badly upon his record, imposes costs on the state, etc. ), and in the rare case that a prosecutor does decide to do so, a defense attorney can motion to dismiss charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Secondly, this thought experiment with the unfair jury suggests that incompetence (or irresponsibility) is a greater threat to the right to freedom of the accused than discrimination on the part of jurors. This is because the impartiality clause of the Sixth Amendment dictates that both the prosecution and the defense may question potential jurors to screen out biases and to challenge jurors if bias is found. Jurors may be removed in voir dire based on peremptory challenges[1]. The reason defendants do not have a right to appeal a conviction based on claims of a biased jury is because these peremptory challenges exist. Although it may be objected that a juror can hide his or her biases just to convict the accused is an objection with the fundamental structure and purpose of the jury system, not to the discriminatory practices of the individual juror (whose power is granted by the jury system). Thirdly, my opponent assumes all kinds of prejudice exhibit the same disposition. Although all of the jurors are, to some degree, "racist" because they recognize a difference between races, there may be different degrees or reasons for prejudice in the jury. For instance, four jurors may think the accused is guilty because he is black, and therefore more likely to commit crimes because of lower socioeconomic standards. Three other jurors may think the accused is guilty because he is black, and blacks are more likely to associate in gangs and therefore participate in gang initiations. Three other jurors may think the accused is guilty because he is black, and blacks are less likely to grow up in two-parent households[2]. The rest of the jurors may think that blacks do not understand the difference between right and wrong. The point is they do not just, as my opponent says, "hate the defendant" simply because he is black. Their prejudice against the man because he is black may be based in ignorance or misunderstanding, and it is not possible for jurors to simply shove their ignorance and misunderstandings aside to become perfectly rational beings until the end of the trial. With that said, it is clear that discriminatory practices on the part of jurors represents a failure either of (a) the parties involved with the trial, or (b) the trial-by-jury system itself. I move now to establish an affirmative case against the resolution. To say that discrimination deprives one of a right, one must specify what that right is to. A right presupposes both a subject and an object. Whether we are talking about civil and political rights like freedom from violent crime or slavery, or economic, social, and cultural rights like rights to social security and education, there is always a recipient and a participant. Thus, for discrimination to deprive an individual of his or her right signifies primarily that the object of that right is being withheld from its subject. For example, an employer discriminates against a prospective employee by denying her a job solely based on her gender. However, this presupposes that the prospective employee had a right to the job for which she was denied based on her gender. There is no object of the right being withheld from her, and thus her rights are not being violated. This is an example of a civil right. For an example of a social right, consider segregation in the South during the 20th century. African-American students were not allowed to attend white public schools. Although this was discrimination, the rights of African-American students were not being infringed upon, for these students were not entitled to the object of this right (the services of the public school). Although these public schools were state-run and paid for by tax money, not all citizens in a country are entitled to government services they pay for with tax money (for example, social security for anyone under a certain age). Access to the public school came about through legislation granting the right to attend that school. There are far more mundane examples of discrimination. For example, when I choose a girlfriend, I am discriminating against a wide range of white, Mexican, Chinese, Indian, and Asian women that I could have also given a chance. This, of course, deprives these women of the chance to be my girlfriend. Nevertheless, they never had the right to be my girlfriend unless I gave them that right in the first place. Thus, I am not violating their rights to begin with. -------------------------- [1] = . http://www.crfc.org... [2] = . http://www.ntia.doc.gov...