The racist origin of state laws on juries is encouraging change

TWO of the jurors who sat in judgment at Willie Dunn junior’s murder trial in 2011 thought he had a plausible claim to self-defence, and voted to acquit him. The other ten thought Mr Dunn was guilty not of murder but of the lesser crime of manslaughter, and in Louisiana that’s good enough. Mr Dunn is now about midway through a 20-year stretch in prison.

Whereas split verdicts are acceptable in England, in America they can convict people only in Louisiana and Oregon, each of which allows convictions in most felony cases when ten of 12 jurors agree. Now in Louisiana a proposal to put the question of reforming the law before voters has cleared the state Senate and is pending in the House; and in Oregon prosecutors, the law’s staunchest defenders, are talking about supporting a change.

The shift of sentiment comes amid renewed discussion of the law’s shameful history and troubling effects. The Advocate, Louisiana’s largest newspaper, recently...Continue reading

Source: United States https://ift.tt/2J6ip9p

Share this

Related Posts

Previous
Next Post »