Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of his “peers” last week in one of the most disgraceful events in American history. The case concerning the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels was considered a joke by most legal experts, even liberal ones. Yet a Manhattan jury convicted him on all 34 counts in the trial.
The case undermines the mythical assumptions surrounding trial by jury. You can no longer expect justice from your supposed peers.
Trial by jury was a tradition enshrined by the Founders. The Declaration of Independence denounced the British crown for depriving several colonists of the right to trial by jury. The Constitution explicitly spells out this right. "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote.
Jefferson and the other Founders prized trial by jury because it aligned with their vision of the republic. This nation would be populated by independent yeoman farmers. They would be capable of providing for themselves, defending themselves, and representing themselves. These sturdy Anglo-Saxons were thought to be perfectly suited for serving as jurors. It seemed a better legal system to let hard-working, God-fearing men who shared the same values and culture as the trial participants to decide verdicts. Anglo-Protestant notions of fair play, objectivity, and respect for the rule of law made this system work. The nation’s tremendous level of human capital supported confidence in jury pools.
America today is a very different country from the one Jefferson envisioned centuries ago. We are not an agrarian republic, few Americans identify with their Anglo-Saxon roots, and we mostly live in large population centers where we barely know our neighbors. On top of all this, we are a very diverse nation where many people don’t care for the old WASP norms. In fact, such norms are denounced as bigoted elements of whiteness. The human capital of this country has also significantly declined. Just walk around your nearest city, mall, or airport to see what a lot of your fellow citizens look and act like.
All of this should undermine confidence in trial by jury. Rather than reaching fair verdicts through a reasoned, democratic process, juries often deliver rank injustice. The Trump trial is just the latest example. Many of the jurors indicated they were strong liberals, but incredibly claimed they could judge Trump impartially. You have to be stupid to take the word of these jurors. They’re of course going to be biased on the jury. The only jurors who were honest were conservatives, who all said they couldn’t be impartial, and were thus summarily dismissed. While commendable for being forthright (a no longer fashionable WASP virtue), it was stupid to eliminate themselves when the entire jury was prejudiced. This just ensured Trump didn’t get a fair trial.
Liberals insist that ordinary Americans can magically leave behind their politics and preferences if they simply tell a judge or prosecutor that they can do so. The only time they think a juror may lie is if they have the wrong views, such as racial bias or conservative politics. But if a leftist says they can be impartial, then by God they are!
This leads to such idiocy as claims a Black Lives Matter activist was able to be an impartial juror for the Derek Chauvin trial. No one in their right mind would believe that to be true, but the mainstream media insisted that this activist left his biases at the door.
There’s this cartoonish thinking that people can get beyond themselves and think completely objectively if they’re asked to. A lot of media convey this myth to the public. In many ways, our system relies on belief in this myth to function. We need people to believe that figures entrusted with important roles—whether a judge, juror, or some other kind of authority—act impartially. Time and time again, we see that not happen. It shouldn’t surprise us. Fair play and respect for the rule of law were bequeathed to us by the founding stock. As they disappear, so do those values.
Juries increasingly have a hard time convicting black criminals charged with crimes against non-blacks. The most famous example of this happened in 1995 when a majority-black jury exonerated the clearly guilty O.J. Simpson for the murder of his white ex-wife and her friend. Jurors openly admitted they believed he was innocent simply because he was black and they thought the racist LAPD was out to get him. This trend has gotten far worse since the George Floyd Revolution. Here are a few recent examples:
A black man who viciously attacked a white female cop was found not guilty of the most serious charges by a California jury in 2023.
A Delaware jury couldn’t reach a guilty verdict in 2023 against a black man who robbed and assaulted an Asian jewelry store clerk. This was despite him being caught on camera committing the crime and being arrested with the stolen loot.
A California jury deadlocked in 2023 over convicting two black thieves of the murder of an elderly white photographer. The murder was caught on film and the defendants admitted to committing the heinous act. But defense attorneys claimed that one perp could not be found responsible due to her suffering from a “sickle cell crisis,” drug withdrawals, and a low IQ (apparently the only time IQ is relevant in modern America is when it is an excuse for black crime). This argument apparently persuaded some of the jurors.
A black man in Iowa was found not guilty of murder in 2022 for his role in the death of his white girlfriend. He severely beat the victim and the woman fell from her apartment balcony during the assault. She died from the fall. The jury found the black man not responsible for the death—only for the assault.
A black man in South Carolina was found not guilty in 2021 after shooting and killing a white retired volunteer fire chief as the victim sat in his car. The shooter claimed the victim startled him and that was a sufficient explanation to find him innocent of murder.
None of these cases bolster confidence in trial by jury.
Needless to say, if you’re a white guy accused of a political crime–whether you’re Donald Trump, Derek Chauvin, or Douglass Mackey–a jury of your peers will screw you over if set in the wrong jurisdiction. But if you’re a literal murderer with the right skin color, you can walk free thanks to a jury of your peers.
America needs to reform this system. The first step is accepting that jurors cannot be objective simply because they say so. It would be better if we just picked random people and didn’t interrogate them beforehand. Liberals know to lie in the process while conservatives are too honest. It’s best to accept that no matter who you get, you're going to deal with their preconceived notions. We could potentially favor trial by judge, but this would probably be even worse for thought criminals. But at least judges would put actual criminals behind bars.
We want to believe that the American people are fundamentally good and the government is the problem. But our government is in many ways as “good” as the people it represents. We are no longer the hardy, Anglo-Saxon yeomanry of the past. We’re something else entirely. Much of the current American population is not very “good.” That’s why trial by jury is such a joke now. It’s only as reliable as the people who will serve.
Delusions surrounding trial by jury should be dispensed with. We live in a new age, and it’s time to see clearly that it is not one of fairness or virtue—both indispensable requirements for a jury system to thrive. Juries can be absolute jokes and don’t deserve the respect our institutions demand.