The Urgent Need to Reform Jury Selection after the Gerald Stanley and Colton Boushie Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acquittal of Gerald Stanley of both murder and manslaughter in killing of a 22 year old Cree man Colton Boushie has been called Canada's Rodney King case. The acquittal came after accused used peremptory challenges to exclude 4-5 visibly Indigenous jurors and prosecutor's apparent refusal to challenge jurors on whether racist bias against Indigenous victim would prevent them from deciding case impartially on basis of evidence. This comment also examines case with a focus on colonial and systemic discrimination starting with execution of the Battleford Eight in 1885. It proposes changes to Canadian jury selection system including abolition of peremptory challenges and enactment of more robust standards based on substantive equality to review pools of prospective jurors. It also examines changes that such reforms might require in Canada's challenge for cause process and role of judges in ensuring that jurors are impartial and competent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".