If we know that jurors consciously or unconsciously take factors such as race into account when weighing a case, then why aren't jurors in a separate room where they don't see the defendant and can't be influence by such things? Isn't Lady Justice always depicted as blindfolded? Or, why aren't juries truly a jury of your peers? Why are the names of defendants known? O.J., Martha Stewart. . . Often people are either convicted or sentenced according to who they are. These are of course celebrities, but what about a small town or community? Surely who you are in the community also comes into play.

Just questions, I doubt there is a perfect system anywhere. And I'd rather take my chances in an American court than elsewhere.

I personally am never shocked when a "family man" turns out to be a thief or a killer. Maybe I just watch too much crime TV, but almost every case aired on shows like "Forensic Files" a priest, an ex-marine, a boy-scout, or a family man, turns around and does something horrific. It is no longer surprising to me. Our categories for people are for our own comfort and aren't at all based in reality. A kid who grows up in a poor urban area is likely to have a criminal background based on opportunity, but the capability for crime is across the board. I fear the father of four more than the typical robber hitting up the convience store in the ghetto. The family man is able to blend into "normal" life and hide the crime instints until they come out in something pretty explosive. It is less surprising as it is unsettling in that it challanges out ability to spot dangerous people without re-working hard set stereotypes.