Wrong dictionary. "Jury of one's peers" is a legal term of art, and as such it carries an idiomatic meaning that can't be constructed by defining the individual words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
This is a US definition, but the principle belongs to a shared English common law heritage, so it applies here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_of_ones_peers
The principle is that the jury ought to reflect a broad cross-section of society. This apparent reversal of the meaning of "peer" derives from the principle of equality before the law: we are all equals.
So, based on the crowds of people who supported Stanley before any evidence was heard (and who have gathered outside the courthouse to support Edouard Maurice, in his case), we ought to exclude a "certain demographic," i.e. white people, from the jury pool.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Right?
The assumption that every member of a racial group shares certain views is racist, period.
This Sun story is the only source for the claim that indigenous jury candidates spoke openly of "hanging" Stanley.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
It is based on a single anonymous source.
In journalism, the standard for anonymous sources is that their claims must be corroborated by other sources or by documents. The Sun did not do this. So we have one person who declines to stand behind his/her words, making an unsupported claim. A responsible reporter would look to the credibility of that person.
So....
This person also claims knowledge that each of the five indigenous people dismissed by peremptory challenge had individually made prejudiced remarks, which is unlikely to say the least.
But the kicker here is that person's remark that indigenous candidates could not have been rejected on racial grounds, because whites were also rejected. That's obviously motivated reasoning.
Not credible. And notably, only the Sun reported this.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
