Comments by "Serenity" (@SerenityM54L2SAM5L5N1) on "" video.

Well, it isn't. Perhaps do some research prior to believing left-wing ideologically motivated talking points by a comedian. Here: "To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)" In other words, there's a total understandable and logical explanation as to why.
3
Where's the evidence? Have you done research around this topic prior to coming to the conclusion that "systematic racism" exists? It mostly doesn't. If anything, systematic racism affects the majority population by discriminating against them during college admissions or in some work applications to fill that diversity quota. Look up the requirements to become a juror. After having done so, you'll see why minorities aren't as "represented", through natural and explainable factors. But let's keep excusing the substantial issues that many of these groups bring to our country. Let's continuously distribute capital, second chances, funds, and sympathy to groups who never manages to get "back on their feet" and contribute. Right? Right.
3
And why do you think that there weren't any "non-white" people in the room? Well, if you look into it, here's the legitimate reason as to why: "To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)" Based on the statistics pointing out the overrepresentation in low education, having an unqualified status, crime rates and experiencing problematic circumstances, this would explain the natural and valid discrepancy between "white" jurors and minorities. Shoehorning minorities into the position of jurors wouldn't necessarily improve the outcome of the rulings nor set better precedents. That's a discriminatory and prejudiced mindset as well, that "whites" would rule in an irrational, unfair or discriminatory fashion.
2
@Tommy_Mac Perhaps since the overwhelming amount of evidence led to the defendant ending up in an inferior position. That's how it's supposed to be. But people keep telling me that the cops, the judicial system and whites are the cause of these trivial non-issues. I'd suggest finding a better and actually valid scapegoat.
2
And just because you're white doesn't imply that you'll rule in a way perceived as unfair or undesirable for other groups. Why argue with such a racist outlook? Even Oliver's using this rhetoric. Unbelievable. And no, Oliver would certainly not be impartial considering that he's fine in excusing the illegal and bad conduct frequently committed by certain groups. He'd be fine in providing clemency, pardons and acquit many of these heavy criminals who deserve what's coming to them. He's fine with brushing violations under the rug and pointing fingers at the police officers and law-abiding citizens that upholds our country. Objective? No.
2
Why are there not as many minority groups represented in this part of the judicial system? Here: "To be legally qualified for jury service, an individual must: be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)" In other words, there's a total understandable and logical explanation as to why.
1
Certain groups not being "represented". What's up with the obsession in that? Perhaps there's good reason as to why these individuals are represented as often? Why do you presume that different rulings would arise based on people's race? Isn't that racism? What's advantageous about an increase in blacks/hispanics acting in jurors leading to more lenient sentences being handed out? It's not.
1
No, they're completely normal and legitimate because you have to meet certain criterias and requirements to serve as a juror. Certain types of groups with a low academic score, criminal records and lack of capability to express themselves–will therefore be excluded on legal and rational basis.
1
@HotSeatArchive Just say that you're incapable of participating in debates with grown ups without crying raycism day in and day out.
1
@genieglasslamp5028 Watched it all.
1
@baydiac I contributed with a statement full of substance and counterarguments to the dominating argument. The same can't be said for yourself, so be quiet or stay on topic.
1