Should racial background and personal information be totally removed during a jury's verdict?

In truth, I'm not very familiar with court proceedings, and if this is something that is already practiced then I guess lock the thread.

But if not, let me explain exactly what I mean. When a case is brought to the attention of a jury all information regarding their racial background and personal information should be completely anonymous/removed from the report. Doing that would eliminate bias and leave the jury to come up with a verdict solely based on simple facts of both sides. Although a jury is filtered to eliminate bias, it doesn't eradicate the possibility for it to be present. It would allow decisions to be free from the possibility of being racially charged or partial.

How do you remove racial identity and background in a fair and proper trial where the defendant attends in person?

Completely forgot to cover that point, I got a phone call and broke my train of thought.

Rather then them being them in person, all that is shown are the facts. It removes the ability of a verdict to be swayed away from what actually occurred. Once a adamant decision is made, then they are brought in to hear it.

Well, the juries and verdicts by peer review should largely be abolished in the first place.

But if you'd still decide to keep it, the jury should be informed of all personal information and racial background.

You think juries should be abolished?

Is that a "fringe" view, in the legal profession?

Meta you fuck, I spent like 10 minutes on that just for you. The least you can do is a like or response.

Ha, I was on a driving lesson.

It's certainly interesting though; would it be possible to get rid of juries in common law countries? Or are the two simply too intertwined?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on July 10, 2015, 11:54:50 AM

Ha, I was on a driving lesson.

Well you're not really learning anything when you're on the wrong side of the road.

LOL