Innocent by Circumstance

What is this "less qualified" crap? Who told you, and what constitutes qualifications?

I'm not sure how what you are saying could be construed as helping to fix a problem.

I don’t consider myself a prejudiced person, but I sometimes find myself thinking thoughts which could be construed as “racist”.

So why shouldn't you begin thinking of yourself as a "prejudiced person"? Obviously there is some reason other than that you don't want to think of yourself that way, right? So is it that you think your implicit biases are slight? Or that you are successfully correcting for them? Or that implicit biases and the occasional racially antagonistic thought don't amount to prejudice? What would you do if you concluded that you were actually a prejudiced person? Would you try to change, or would you accept the fact and resolve to ignore/proclaim/hide it?

These same attitudes pervade the typical juries in this country, and skin color undoubtedly plays a role in determining guilt or innocence.

You have very little confidence in juries, apparently. Do you actually think that, although you're an unprejudiced person, skin color would "undoubtedly" play a role in determining whether you voted for conviction or acquittal of a criminal defendant? (If so, I don't understand why you don't call yourself a prejudiced person, as that would be a literal example of prejudice.) If you wouldn't understand your oath as a juror to permit such behavior, why do you think other people would?

As a middle class white person with a JD from Columbia Law School, I stand a much better chance at avoiding conviction than my black neighbor who has not been provided the same opportunities.

White skin privilege has sometimes been known to run out in front of urban juries, who may not appreciate your invulnerable social position quite as much as you do. See, as you would say, Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.

The Supreme Court even recognized the disparity in McCleskey v. Kemp, but ruled there is nothing unconstitutional about general community attitudes favoring one race over another (it is only unconstitutional if it can be proven discrimination was directed at a specific case).

That's a somewhat inflammatory and not very accurate summary of Justice Powell's opinion. You will recall, I'm sure, that the evidence presented in McCleskey, assembled by David Baldus, showed no substantial effect on the frequency of the death penalty from the race of the defendant: perhaps Georgia jurors were not quite as undoubtedly pervaded as you suggest.

What Baldus did show, however, was that the race of the victim accounted, in a statistical sense, for roughly as much of the death penalty frequency as whether the defendant had a prior felony conviction. The Court said that such evidence of disparate impact could not be used to attack the Georgia sentencing scheme without a showing that there was intentional racial discrimination in particular juries, because actions predicated directly on the 14th amendment require a showing of intentional discrimination, and each jury is a unique decision-maker assembled independently of all other juries.

Much is wrong with that opinion, and I still very much regret that there is no Marshall dissent. But your way of describing the holding does Justice Powell a disservice.

If you find yourself in criminal trouble, don't take free advice from family friends. Don't have a friend represent you for free, and not for not-free, either. Don't mix any emotional connection of any kind with the business of defending you. If you break any of those rules, you'll wind up very very sorry.

or be referred to a specific lawyer specializing in an area relevant to my crime. I would have family and friends to support me, giving me hope while I deal with the issue. Basically, the community would have my back, and I would not have to go to trial alone.

Maybe that's true, and if it is, there should be some evidence for it. You seem to be reasoning as though cases mostly go to trial, when of course cases overwhelmingly are settled by negotiated disposition. All your talk about how you're going to hire the dream team and wow them at the trial may not bear much relation to what happens when the day really comes.

Now you're concluding, without having actually ever introduced a single fact in favor of this assertion. When someone tells me something is "unbelievably important" on no evidence whatever, I am pretty sure I know who's unbelievable. You said of these three "simple variables" that one was "obvious," another was "undoubted," and you then made a factual assertion without any proof as to the third.

Excuse me? Since when do defendants have to prove their innocence?

An obvious statement. So?

The only way to be completely certain of not wrongly convicting any person would be to convict no one (In terms of a statistics test, Beta=1.0)

Which is a fancy way of not saying anything everyone doesn't understand.

One of the only ways to fight the disparity is for jurors to consider the aforementioned factors when determining guilt. By ignoring them, the legal system essentially puts certain classes of people at a disadvantage.

What does "considering" the wealth of a defendant do? Who is supposed to introduce evidence of the defendant's wealth, and why? What would "considering" race mean and how can you justify treating it as evidence? Evidence of what?

Your conclusion bears no logical relation to the unproven case that precedes it. Substantive editorial revision of the presentation of the ideas and the transitions in the essay is necessary.