UK Study: All-white juries are biased, against whites

The social justice warriors (SJWs), like the climate activists, have their tell, and that is psychological projection.  Whatever they accuse normal people of is what they are guilty of, and racism is no exception.

We have seen it numerous times in recent months, notably when it comes to the racial distribution of entertainment industry awards.  The SJWs accuse the awards industry of being too white, but whether we look at the Oscars, the Grammys and the Billboard Top 100, or the American Music Awards, blacks are over-represented relative to their proportion of the total population.  If anything, there is general evidence of racism against whites.

For years, we have heard screaming from the SJWs that all-white juries are racist against blacks and other visible minorities.  But a study released in early 2010 from the U.K.'s Ministry of Justice debunks this nonsense, and on close examination of the results, there is instead evidence of systemic racism against whites by all-white juries.

The U.K. study laid out the background concerns behind the work that should sound familiar regardless of where you are in the West:

For several decades there have been claims that the racial composition of juries affects jury fairness in this country. Where Black and minority ethnic (BME) defendants are tried by an all-White jury, the concerns are two-fold: that all-White juries may actually treat BME defendants unfairly and that all-White juries simply appear unfair. Similar concerns can also arise where all-White juries try White defendants accused of racially motivated crimes involving BME victims.

In contrast to this convenient SJW narrative, according to the study, "41 all-White juries viewed the same case and then deliberated to reach a verdict. Some juries saw the case with a White defendant while others saw the case with a BME defendant (either a Black defendant or an Asian defendant). The verdicts of these all-White juries showed no evidence of discrimination against BME defendants."

In fact, there were three times as many guilty verdicts against the white defendant by the all-white jury as there were guilty verdicts against the BME defendant by an all-white jury.

Similarly, white jurors on the same fact pattern "were least likely to convict the Black defendant and most likely to convict the White defendant."  Based on the data, the white jurors were about twice as likely to convict the white defendant compared to the black counterpart.  Translation: white-on-white racism.

The following finding is deeply troubling as evidence of anti-white racism in the jury system:

White jurors at Nottingham were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim (61%) than when he was accused of assaulting a White victim (4%).

In addition to there being no difference in jury conviction rates by race, "White jurors serving on all-White juries at both Nottingham and Winchester did not stereotype any defendants (White, Black or Asian) as more or less likely to commit certain offences based on their race."

Throwing a wrench into the all-white jury hysteria drummed up by SJWs was the following shocker:

White defendants accused of racial offences appeared to be convicted more often in courts where juries were likely to be all-White (44%) compared to courts where racially mixed juries are the norm (34%).

In other words, if you are a white defendant accused of a racial offense, you should pray you don't get an all-white jury, as it will be much more likely to convict you than would a racially mixed jury.  So much for that supposed all-white jury advantage that white defendants purportedly are able to take advantage of.

Overall, the government study "conducted under controlled conditions with real jurors" concluded that "[t]he finding that all-White juries do not discriminate is an extremely important conclusion, which is highly reliable."

Well, we can modify that conclusion a bit.  The study found that all-white juries do not discriminate against blacks and other visible minorities such as Asians, but there is strong evidence that such juries do discriminate against whites.

The social justice warriors (SJWs), like the climate activists, have their tell, and that is psychological projection.  Whatever they accuse normal people of is what they are guilty of, and racism is no exception.

We have seen it numerous times in recent months, notably when it comes to the racial distribution of entertainment industry awards.  The SJWs accuse the awards industry of being too white, but whether we look at the Oscars, the Grammys and the Billboard Top 100, or the American Music Awards, blacks are over-represented relative to their proportion of the total population.  If anything, there is general evidence of racism against whites.

For years, we have heard screaming from the SJWs that all-white juries are racist against blacks and other visible minorities.  But a study released in early 2010 from the U.K.'s Ministry of Justice debunks this nonsense, and on close examination of the results, there is instead evidence of systemic racism against whites by all-white juries.

The U.K. study laid out the background concerns behind the work that should sound familiar regardless of where you are in the West:

For several decades there have been claims that the racial composition of juries affects jury fairness in this country. Where Black and minority ethnic (BME) defendants are tried by an all-White jury, the concerns are two-fold: that all-White juries may actually treat BME defendants unfairly and that all-White juries simply appear unfair. Similar concerns can also arise where all-White juries try White defendants accused of racially motivated crimes involving BME victims.

In contrast to this convenient SJW narrative, according to the study, "41 all-White juries viewed the same case and then deliberated to reach a verdict. Some juries saw the case with a White defendant while others saw the case with a BME defendant (either a Black defendant or an Asian defendant). The verdicts of these all-White juries showed no evidence of discrimination against BME defendants."

In fact, there were three times as many guilty verdicts against the white defendant by the all-white jury as there were guilty verdicts against the BME defendant by an all-white jury.

Similarly, white jurors on the same fact pattern "were least likely to convict the Black defendant and most likely to convict the White defendant."  Based on the data, the white jurors were about twice as likely to convict the white defendant compared to the black counterpart.  Translation: white-on-white racism.

The following finding is deeply troubling as evidence of anti-white racism in the jury system:

White jurors at Nottingham were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim (61%) than when he was accused of assaulting a White victim (4%).

In addition to there being no difference in jury conviction rates by race, "White jurors serving on all-White juries at both Nottingham and Winchester did not stereotype any defendants (White, Black or Asian) as more or less likely to commit certain offences based on their race."

Throwing a wrench into the all-white jury hysteria drummed up by SJWs was the following shocker:

White defendants accused of racial offences appeared to be convicted more often in courts where juries were likely to be all-White (44%) compared to courts where racially mixed juries are the norm (34%).

In other words, if you are a white defendant accused of a racial offense, you should pray you don't get an all-white jury, as it will be much more likely to convict you than would a racially mixed jury.  So much for that supposed all-white jury advantage that white defendants purportedly are able to take advantage of.

Overall, the government study "conducted under controlled conditions with real jurors" concluded that "[t]he finding that all-White juries do not discriminate is an extremely important conclusion, which is highly reliable."

Well, we can modify that conclusion a bit.  The study found that all-white juries do not discriminate against blacks and other visible minorities such as Asians, but there is strong evidence that such juries do discriminate against whites.