A JUDGE HAS ORDERED AN INDIVIDUAL, A
DEFENDANT, STANDING TRIAL TO COVER HIS TATTOOS IN ORDER TO
RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL. TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE PERSON IN
QUESTION. YOU GET A SENSE OF WHY THE TATTOO SHOULD BE COVERED. HE
HAS A TEARDROP, WHICH INDICATES HE WAS IN PRISON BEFORE, OR THAT
HE'S KILLED SOMEONE. YOU HAVE A NAZI SIGN ON HIS FACE AS WELL.
>>IT'S HARD TO SEE, IT IS A SWASTIKA INSIDE A CLOVER.
>> OKAY, IT LOOKED LIKE A CLOVER.
>> BEFORE CHOOSING WHO THE JURORS WOULD BE IN THIS CASE, BY
THE WAY, HE IS ACCUSED OF
HIDEOUS THINGS. HE IS ACCUSED OF STEALING A MAN TO MOTORCYCLE AT
GUNPOINT. HE ALSO FACES THE DEATH PENALTY IN A DIFFERENT
CASE. HE IS ACCUSED OF KILLING A A 75 YEAR OLD WOMAN DAYS BEFORE THAT
ROBBERY. THE JUDGE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE GETS A FAIR TRIAL.
JURORS WHERE SAYING THEY WOULD
BE UNABLE TO BE UNBIASED IF THEY SAW TATTOOS ON THE FACE. NOW
EVERY DAY BEFORE HE STANDS TRIAL
HE NEEDS TO HAVE IT COVERED. A PROFESSIONAL MAKEUP ARTIST
COVERS IT UP, WHICH I THINK IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.
YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.
>>I DON'T AGREE. YOU HAVE THE LIBERAL POSITION. THIS BRINGS ME
BACK TO WHY I WAS A CONSERVATIVE
IN LAW SCHOOL. DO WE TRUST THE JURY OR NOT? WE WOULD HAVE THEM
DO MAKE UP IN FRONT OF A JUDGE,
SOMETIMES YOU WILL HAVE A JURY TRIAL AND SOMETIMES A DEFENDANT
WILL WANT A TRIAL BY JUDGE. WE WOULD NEVER DO THE MAKE UP FOR
THE JUDGE, BECAUSE WE TRUST HIM. THE JURY WE THINK OUR BUNCH OF
KNUCKLEHEADS, SO WE HAVE TO DO
THE MAKE UP ON THE GUY.
THEN DON'T DO JURY TRIALS IF YOU THINK THEY ARE ALL STUPID.
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY ARE STUPID.
BY THE WAY, I ALSO THINK THAT A SWASTIKA ON YOUR FACE IS
INDICATIVE OF SOMETHING.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DID THAT BANK ROBBERY.
>> STOP, I DISAGREE. PEOPLE MAKE STUPID DECISIONS IN THEIR LIVES
AND GET STUPID ñ THAT IS BY FAR ONE OF THE STUPIDEST DECISIONS
ANYONE COULD MAKE, PUTTING A SWASTIKA ON YOUR FACE IS
IDIOTIC. HOWEVER, YOU CAN'T USE HIS TATTOO AS A WAY OF DECIDING
WHETHER OR NOT HE IS GUILTY OF A DIFFERENT CRIME, OR IF HE IS
GUILTY OF STEALING A MOTORCYCLE, OR KILLING A 75-YEAR-OLD WOMAN.
IF HE DID IT, I WANT TO BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. I'M NOT TRYING TO DO
HIM ANY FAVORS. THE REALITY IS, WHETHER YOU TRUST INDIVIDUALS
ARE NOT PEOPLE ARE EASILY PERSUADED BY THE WAY SOMEONE
LOOKS. IF HE HAS TATTOOS LIKE THAT, JURORS ARE GOING TO FOCUS
MORE ON THAT AND IT IS GOING TO
BIAS THEM. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I WANT A FAIR TRIAL.
>>I HAVE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. I'M NOT SAYING I SEE A SWASTIKA
ON A
GUYS FACE AND I SAY GUILTY.
>> YOU DON'T THINK THAT WAY, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT WAY.
>> IF HE HAS A SWASTIKA, THEN HE
AT LEAST IS PRETENDING TO HATE A
LOT OF PEOPLE. BY THE WAY, WE ALSO DON'T SHARE WITH THE JURY
ALL THE PAST CRIMES A. THE JUDGE GETS TO SEE ALL OF THAT. IF I
HAVE A DECISION WITH SOMEONE, I
WANT THE BACKGROUND. I DON'T THINK ñ IT DOES MEAN THAT IT IS
PART OF MY DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS AS IT SHOULD BE. TO SAY THAT THIS ANGEL WAS DROPPED ON
THIS EARTH HERE, IS PREPOSTEROUS.
>>NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. YOU NEED CONTEXT RELATING TO THE CHARGES
AGAINST HIM. PEOPLE MAKE STUPID DECISIONS THROUGHOUT THEIR
LIVES. WHAT IF HE GOT THAT RIDICULOUS TATTOO AND IT TURNS
OUT HE COMPLETELY CHANGED.
>>LIKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY X.
>>THEY WOULD HAVE AT TRIAL AND PRESENT THAT EVIDENCE, AND
THAT I WOULD RULE THE OTHER WAY.
>> A COUPLE OF POINTS, ONE I THINK THE SAYING THAT THE
STANDARD THAT A JURY COULD THEORETICALLY BE BIASED, SO WHAT
IS THE DIFFERENCE. I THINK A JUDGE RECEIVES TRAINING TO WEED
THAT OUT. BUT I DO THINK IF I
SAW SOMEONE AND I SAW SOMEONE WITH FACIAL TATTOOS I WOULD
ASSUME HE DID IT TOO. PEOPLE EVEN VOTE FOR CANDIDATES THAT
ARE MORE ATTRACTIVE OR TALLER.
>> THAT'S WHAT BERNIE DID SO WELL IN THIS ELECTION.
>>HIS HAIR AS A COUPLE OF INCHES. THE PROBLEM IS IT IS A
SLIPPERY SLOPE. WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED SWASTIKA TATTOOS AS SOMETHING THAT IDENTIFIES YOU AS
A CRIMINAL. BUT ALSO THE JURY IS LATER ON MORE ATTRACTIVE
DEFENDANTS. WHY DO WE PUT MAKEUP ON EVERYONE?
>> THAT MAKES IT REALLY TOUGH WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ALL THE
OTHER SUBTLE IMPLICIT BIASES THAT AFFECT JURIES. THERE ARE
TONS OF THEM. WE HAVE STUDIES THAT CAN IDENTIFY SOME. SHOULD
WE TRY TO CORRECT ALL OF THEM? I DON'T KNOW.
>>HERE IS WHY, RACE.
>>SO SHOULD WE PUT WHITE POWDER ON A BLACK-EYED?
>>MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T SEE THE DEFENDANT AT ALL.
>>THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT GUY IS GUILTY.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THAT PICTURE?
>>WHAT IF IT IS NOT A SWASTIKA, OR ITíS A KITTEN ON HIS CHEEK? YOU
CAN PLAY WITH THESE LITTLE
THINGS. ITíS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
>>YOU ARE ASKING US TO SUSPEND NORMAL HUMAN COMMON SENSE. IF HE
HAD A TEAR IN THE SHAPE OF A
KITTEN, AND HE WAS ACCUSED OF KILLING KITTENS, THAT IS KIND OF
RELEVANT. I AM A HUMAN BEING, I CAN MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT IF
YOU THINK I CAN'T MAKE THAT
DECISION, THEN DON'T LET ME. JUST LET THE JUDGES DECIDE.
BUT WE CAN ASSUME THE JURY IS DUMBER THAN THE JUDGE,
OTHERWISE WE SHOULD HAVE A SYSTEM.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT? I MIGHT GET HEAT FOR THIS, I THINK THE JURY
IS DUMBER THAN THE JUDGE. I WAS A JUROR, I AM DUMBER THAN THE
JUDGE. PEOPLE ARE PRONE TO PREJUDICE AND BIASES BASED ON
THE APPEARANCE OF SOMEONE. RACE IS SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE CANNOT
HELP. THE IDEA OF POWDERING SOMEONE TO MAKE THEM LOOK LIGHT
IS RIDICULOUS. BUT SOMETHING LIKE A TATTOO COULD'VE BEEN A
REALLY TERRIBLE DECISION SOMEONE MADE EARLIER IN THEIR LIFE, AND
THEY COULD'VE BEEN A CHANGED PERSON. IT IS UNFAIR REGARDLESS
OF THE PERSON'S RACE. ALL THOSE OTHER FACTORS DON'T MATTER TO
ME.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO WHAT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE AN
UNBIASED JURY SO SOMEONE CAN STAND A FAIR TRIAL.
THAT IS WHAT I WANT.
>> I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORST EXAMPLE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING, AND THERE IS A LOT OF IGNORANCE OF THE WORLD.
DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE STUPID, IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY DIDN'T GET
A GREAT EDUCATION, AND THE JUDGE
TOO. HE HAS SEEN THE CONTEXT IN A LOT OF CASES BOTH IN HIS
EXPERIENCE AND IN LAWSUIT. THE JURY MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT
CONTEXT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. I THINK IT IS A LEGITIMATE DEBATE
AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE JURY TRIALS ARE NOT. PART OF THE
REASON WHY I LIKE IT IS THAT OFTENTIMES A JURY HAS A
PERSPECTIVE, THAT A JUDGE
DOESN'T. THE WORST EXAMPLE I WOULD GIVE IS THE OJ CASE. IN MY
OPINION, OJ WAS GUILTY. I THINK
THEY MADE THE WRONG DECISION. BUT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT
A CASE LIKE THAT, THE JURY THAT WAS MADE UP PRIMARILY OF AFRICAN
AMERICANS WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE OF HOW THE POLICE TREAT AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN LOS
ANGELES OR OTHER BIG CITIES AND SOMETIMES DO PLANT EVIDENCE. THE
JUDGE WOULD NOT HAVE THAT
PERSPECTIVE. IN THE CASE OF OJ, I THINK HE WAS GUILTY, THIS IS A
TERRIBLE EXAMPLE. BUT I'M SURE THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CASES
WHERE THE JURY WOULD BE MORE
RIGHT THAN THE JUDGE.
AND SO THAT PERSPECTIVE IS ALSO IMPORTANT BECAUSE I LIKE JURY
TRIALS, BUT THAT IS NOT AN EASY QUESTION.
>>I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH JURY TRIALS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT
INFLUENCES THE JURY AND GIVE THEM A BIAS THAT WOULD WORK
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.