The Demise of Trial by Jury

[Fishrrman]

https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/03/the-demise-of-trial-by-jury/

The Demise of Trial by Jury
by Celina
April 3, 2026

Justice isn’t blind anymore: Multiculturalism has made impartial justice impossible
“Law grows with the growth, and strengthens with the strength of the people, and finally dies away as the nation loses its nationality.”
— Friedrich Carl von Savigny

On Tuesday, October 3, 1995, the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial was broadcast live across the globe, a truly defining moment of the late twentieth century. In the now-iconic split-screen imagery, as the words “not guilty” reverberated through the Los Angeles courtroom, black spectators erupted in celebration and applause, raising their fists in jubilation. Conversely, white spectators sat frozen in stunned, horrified silence, grappling with an incomprehensible subversion of the evidentiary record. The stunning juxtaposition of the visual perfectly captured the fracture of a society devoid of a shared moral consensus.


Students at Augustana College react to the verdict of O. J. Simpson’s murder trial,
October 3, 1995. A man got away with a murder that everyone knew he committed,
and half the room is happy because of his race.

This was obviously not an exercise in blind justice; it was an exercise in racial grievance. Decades later, juror Carrie Bess admitted with chilling indifference in a 2016 documentary that 90 percent of the predominantly black jury knew Simpson was guilty, but voted to acquit him purely as “payback” for the Rodney King incident. When asked if she believed that decision was right, she merely shrugged.

This historic moment illuminates how, in multiracial societies, jury verdicts can trigger visibly racialized reactions rather than a shared acceptance of blind justice. When the fundamental demographic and cultural realities of a nation shift, the institutions built upon its original foundations buckle. This phenomenon is not isolated to the United States. Pivoting into the British context, the exact same dynamics now threaten the ancient English jury system, eroding the foundational pillars of common law.

This institutional decay must be understood as part of a broader civilizational shift away from participatory, community-rooted institutions toward centralized legal authority. Trial by jury, the sacred “little parliament” that Englishmen fought and died for since Magna Carta, is being dismantled because, in a multiracial society flooded by non-Western demographics, it no longer delivers blind justice. It delivers ethnic loyalty.

Nonwhite jurors display clear ethnocentric bias against white defendants and in favor of their own. The data is undeniable. The elites know it. That is why they are quietly abolishing peremptory challenges, gutting jury trials, and now planning to scrap them for almost everything except murder and rape. Demography is destiny, and if the English, Americans, or Australians become a minority in their own courtrooms, there will be no justice left.

More at URL above...
(very good piece, worth reading)

[bigheadfred]

 

[Fishrrman]

A little more from the source (with a VERY interesting graphic):

To understand why the state is terrified of its own citizens in the jury box, one must engage analytically with the overwhelming empirical evidence demonstrating the collapse of impartiality in diverse democracies. The tension between group identity and individual objectivity is mapped, quantified, and undeniable.

The baseline for this tribalism is clearly illustrated in the “How racial groups rate each other” chart from the 2021 American National Election Studies (ANES).



The data is visually structured as a four-panel grid, with each panel dedicated to the thermometer ratings provided by a specific respondent demographic: white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. While the chart clearly demonstrates universal in-group favoritism, a closer inspection reveals that the intensity and structure of this bias vary significantly across groups.

Black respondents, for instance, exhibit the most pronounced divergence, with their ratings of fellow blacks clustered at the extreme upper end of the scale, while their evaluations of whites, Hispanics, and Asians fall off sharply, producing the widest in-group/out-group gap in the dataset. By contrast, white respondents display a comparatively flattened distribution, with only a modest preference for their own group and relatively similar warmth ratings across all others. Hispanic and Asian respondents occupy an intermediate position, still favoring their own group but also revealing a discernible hierarchy in their evaluations of out-groups, suggesting that these preferences are not only binary but ordered along lines of perceived proximity or affinity. This pervasive, quantifiable tribalism forms the psychological substrate that jurors inevitably bring into the deliberation room.

When this baseline tribalism intersects with the criminal justice system, the results are catastrophic for the concept of blind justice.

[Fishrrman]

And a little more:

The erosion of trial by jury is the death rattle of an ancient civilizational inheritance. The “little parliament” was forged in a society of high trust, shared heritage, and common moral purpose. It was designed to ensure that the law reflected the conscience of a unified community. But a nation cannot have a community conscience if it is no longer a cohesive community.

The empirical data referred to above is irrefutable. The evidence confirms what Lee Kuan Yew observed over half a century ago. Juries in multiracial societies deliver communal victories and tribal revenge. The elites, fully aware of this terminal decay, have chosen to dismantle the institution rather than abandon the demographic project that destroyed it.

By eliminating peremptory challenges and now rapidly moving to scrap the jury for all but the rarest of crimes under the guise of “swift courts,” the state is insulating itself from the chaotic realities of the society it has engineered. Demography is destiny. When the foundational culture is reduced to a minority in its own courtrooms, the civic institutions built by that culture perish. The lamp that shows that freedom lives is being extinguished, replaced by the cold, technocratic glare of the managerial state, ensuring that in the blind pursuit of multiculturalism, there will be no true justice left.

“A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
— Will Durant

Fishrrman's comments:
30 years ago, an essay like the one above could not have appeared in the mainstream. The only place you might find it published is in something like "American Renaissance", which few folks ever heard about, and most would not ever admit to reading. I'm pleased when I state that I was a subscriber for almost the entire length of its publication as a printed monthly.

Yet, here we are.

Back more than thirty years ago, when America Online was still one of the most-used services before the internet began to pick up, there existed the "AOL Issues Forums". I posted the following there in 1995. The old AOL forums were taken down decades ago, and no archive of them seems to exist, so I have no link to it -- but I do keep extensive archives. I saved this with the title "Shock of the OJ Verdict":
=========
Thoughts on the OJ verdict...

For whites, there were *2* moments of shock last Tuesday.

The first, of course, was when the verdict was announced.

But the second - and far greater and more damaging shock for whites - came moments later, as they witnessed how the vast majority of blacks reacted, with cheers, shouting, fireworks, jumping for joy, and the like.

To which whites all but gasped in horror. After years of affirmative action, social accommodation, self-imposed "guilt", and attempts to legislate "equality" and "fairness", is this how blacks really feel? I daresay that even many so-called "liberal" whites have suddenly had their rose-colored glasses ripped from their eyes by this, and are being forced to look at the reality of what has come to pass in a new light...

Perhaps the word which most appropriately sums up the feelings of whites towards the black glee and gloating over the OJ miscarriage of justice is: DISGUST.

And it does not bode well for the future of race relations in this country, which lately seem to be "on the downgrade". I would call the current state of relations between whites and blacks in America to be in a state of virtual "cold war". Don't believe it? Have you ever seen fundamental values and perceptions so diametrically opposed to one another as those of blacks vs. whites regarding the entire OJ debacle?

A closing thought. Suppose, just suppose, that a long stretch limo pulls up outside your home. Out steps OJ Simpson, a free man, big smile on his face, and he walks right up to your door. He sticks out his hand for a shake. Would you return it?
=========
Who got there first, 31 years ago?