From: U16244@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so.
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:31:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: uicvm.92317.143123U16244
 <1992Nov5.230409.26644@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <BxAv09.FKo@world.std.com>
 <BxIExK.Aqn@ddsw1.mcs.com>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

In article <BxIExK.Aqn@ddsw1.mcs.com>, arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) says:
>If there is any validity to the notion that a mixed jury provides justice,
>we must define the word mixed.  It assumes that people have prejucides
>and biases and by attempting to balance them, justice will prevail.
Once again, your wealth of ignorance astounds me Steempy.  We are dealing
with the jury of a murder case, not the witnesses for or against some new
welfare law being heard before Congress.
>
>It is a sicko idea and another good example of what is wrong with the
>cultural diversity that liberals are stuffing down our throats.  However,
Only you can come up with the idea that cultural diversity is something sick.
After all, why the hell should anyone want to be anything other than a part
of American culture (an oxymoron- much like Arf- if ever there was one).
Having a blend of peoples is not making them homogeneous (mixed all into one
big part for all Ameteur Radio Fops playing the home game) but
creating a heterogeneous group (mixed of many individual parts) which will
instill that everyone is not the same crazed robot of one opinion.  The goal
of jury selection is to get a group which consists of people who are not of
the "kill the nigger" or "give the nigger a medal for killing the kike"
mentalities, but people who would care less.  They picked non-involved parties,
(which is another reason for holding the trial in Brooklyn, away from the
center of the heat) so that they could have people coming into the trial with
no pre-conceived notions, and have to be sold on either guilt or innocence
of the murderer on account of either the prosecution's arguement or the
defense's arguement.  But then, such subtle points of jurisdictional
information are far and beyond the call of Mr. Schmidling's clues as to
what is or what isn't reality.
>
>What the hell do Hispanics have to do with this anyway?  Why are they on the
>jury? My understanding is that the accuse is a Negro and the victim a Jew.
>What it the point in mixing Hispanics in the jury?
The point of "mixing" Hispanics into the jury is for the hell of it.  They
were people not involved in the case, who couldn't give a rat's ass in
Brooklyn either way, and not because of anything else.  In your twisted,
racist mind Jack, if there is a dispute between people of two races, they
should be the only ones to judge.  The trouble is, EVERYONE HAS TO LIVE
IN THE SAME SOCIETY AS THE DISPUTING PARTIES (caps made to drive home point
to man with point on head).  In other words, there could have been 12
Tibetan Mongolians on the jury, just as long as they were American citizens
and were accepted by both the Prosecutor and the Defense Attourney.  RACE HAS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH JURY SELECTION, ONLY PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE AND
PREFORMED OPINIONS ON THE CASE.  THOSE WHO HAVE NO CLUES ABOUT THE CASE GOING
INTO THE TRIAL ARE SUPPOSED TO LEARN THEIR INFORMATION ABOUT THE CASE FROM
THE ARGUEMENTS OF BOTH LEGAL PARTIES- 'NUFF SAID!!!

Honestly, Mr. Jack Schmidling, if you have read this far, hopefully you will
have gotten a clue as to the workings of a criminal jury trial that is known
to a freshman in high school, let alone a college senior.

Just where did you get your education?  Inside a cracker-jack box?

Douglas P. Wojtowicz.
>