Blind Justice

When a person is on trial, what is the point of having the accused in the courtroom and visible to the jury. The accused should be judged based on the evidence,  not of how they look. Numerous studies have shown that both judges and juries have tendencies (on average) to adjust convictions and sentences based on race and gender.  If we want a more fair Justice system, why not just make that impossible. Don't have the accused visual to the judge or jury; and don't use their real name or anything else that could be indicate a person's background. This wouldn't be optional, even for people that think their appearance would be helpful. Of course, if somebody's physical nature is part of evidence, it can be entered with the judge's approval.  What is the downside here?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Free Shakespeare Tickets - Contest #3

My girlfriend and I have two extra tickets to Much Ado About Nothing in the park tonight (Saturday August 7). Since we thought selling free tickets was a little unethical, we decided to have a contest to see who needs them the most. So, if you are interested please go to http://danlipka.blogspot.com/ and post a comment that best describes why you want/need the tickets. The stories can be made up, but you have to specifically say if it is fictional (true stories carry more weight than fiction, but creativity is also a good thing). If you have any questions post them on the blog or email them to me. Tickets can be picked up on the upper east side or by the theater. Contest ends at 6:00 unless something changes, (well maybe at 5:30). Good Luck. 6:14 - It's all over. We have selected and contacted the winners. I’m sorry to all those who weren’t chosen, as you all were deserving of the tickets. To those couples that couldn’t get to go, I say to spend the night together, have a roma
Read more

The Constitution and Justice

When the Supreme Court rules, they often struggle to understand the depth and meanings in some of the words or phrases in the Constitution. However, the Founders provided very clear language as to what they were trying to accomplish from a vision standpoint. Although not the law, the Preamble provides critical guidance that should be the first reference for any court ruling. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Specifically, the word "Justice". It is the very first thing they wanted to establish. Justice should be the defining feature of any law, and anything that increase injustice should be unconstitutional. The very first question at any Supreme Court hearing should always be
Read more

Lessons from History - Democracy

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill I am currently reading biographies on each of the US Presidents. I'm only on Madison, but I've learned some incredible insights into the dysfunctions of our government. Since the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1777, politicians and the wealthy have been constantly undermining justice, equality, and the idea that they should prioritize the good of the nation above all else. The disgraces of current politicians are nothing new and have been part of US political culture since our country's founding. For example, the southern states refused to adopt the constitution unless it counted enslaved people at 3/5 of a person for the purposes of having more ele
Read more