The sentence isn’t relevant to the jury bias discussion (unless the jury is involved in sentencing in the UK?)
> We also have to ask - if the biases in that study were flipped, if White jurors were far more likely to convict BME defendants, and pardon White defendants, and BME jurors were the more even-handed ones, would this not be trumpeted as conclusive evidence of racism?
Yes, but why is this relevant? That’s not the case in the statistics you cited.
My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.
The very study you cited states in their initial summary of findings that
"The study provides the first evidence to support a widely held belief: that racially mixed
juries do not discriminate against defendants based on the defendant’s ethnic background.
While the assumption has been that racially mixed juries will not discriminate against ethnic
minority defendants, this study showed that racially mixed juries also did not discriminate
against White defendants.[0]"
Because the bias was diluted by the other jurors - from the passage on page iii, I assume the juries in the study were only 10-33% BME. The study follows your quote with:
Even though the defendant’s ethnicity did not have an impact on jury verdicts, the research found that in certain cases ethnicity did have a significant impact on the individual votes of some jurors who sat on these juries. Statistical analysis of the individual votes of all 319 jurors who took part in the case simulation showed that in certain cases BME jurors were significantly less likely to vote to convict a BME defendant than a White defendant. [..]
The report concludes that this highlights the benefits of permitting majority verdicts and of having 12 member juries. The fact that 12 jurors must jointly try to reach a decision and that majority verdicts are possible meant that more verdicts were achieved and individual biases did not dictate the decision-making of these racially mixed juries. If juries were smaller or if unanimous verdicts were required, then individual juror bias might potentially have a greater impact on jury verdicts.
> My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.
Sure, but this is a non-statement without qualifying anything behind it. You can defeat any argument by claiming its "multi-faceted". Just like how I am doing to you right now, but instead forcing you into the position where you lack evidence to dismiss.
> We also have to ask - if the biases in that study were flipped, if White jurors were far more likely to convict BME defendants, and pardon White defendants, and BME jurors were the more even-handed ones, would this not be trumpeted as conclusive evidence of racism?
Yes, but why is this relevant? That’s not the case in the statistics you cited.
My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.