Lakhe,

First of all, I have to clarify that I don't even know this guy Ajay, and wouldn't have written a single word if he had been sent to jail for 15 years or so. It is the length of sentence that aroused curiosity in me. I am approaching it from purely blank: I know American jury system has flaws, I know that in America justice is often skewed against people of different background, and American jail system is overcrowded (five time more people per capita are inmates here than in the rest of the world). Overzealous jury, residual bitterness against successful and wealthy foreigners is a fact here and even in other countries. America is a transforming country: it is trying to be civilized, it is trying to a cosmopolitan country which can be an example for the rest of the world--but at the same time, America has a brutal past. 19 million out of 20 million Native Indians were killed and their land grabbed, but American media used to portray these same Red Indians as villains until very  late. (see Hollywood westerns). Lynching was rampant in America, Chinese , who were shanghaied from China to be slave were treated shabbily, denied rights and until recently, say in 1992 in black riot in LA, race relations have been poor. It is reflected everywhere, and more so in a jury that is randomly drawn from the population. But to be fair to this country, every country has blood in its history, and all of us are trying to improve. It is out of my curiosity about American system that I am forced to ask: what was the process of deliberation and decision making that made a jury send a man to jail for 70 ~250 years? Look, society doesn't change over night--as Latin saying goes, natura non facit saltum (nature doesn't make a jump)-- and one can't automatically accept lack of racism as an established truth. Rather, it might be wise to approach any (jury based) decision making as a process that is influenced by the thoughts of people of different background, each with their own view, reaching a decision that is a function of their background, the evidence they saw, and their ability to process the informations they have. As an aspiring lawyer living in Bay Area, I now have a passing interest in this case and hence this inquiry.

"Just because some people were biased against minorities some time does not mean that all the people will be biased against them all the time"

Lakhe, how do you know this is not the time? I am just curious. As far as I am concerned, it could be the exact time when a bias is occured.

"I don't believe at all that jurors were "racist" as you're accusing them"

I am glad you believe that way. I didn't accuse them of being racist, I said there is positive probability that they are racist. Now, it is not a definite sentence, but a man is a package of lots of emotions. It is said by psychologists that our thoughts are parliament within, and they swing; sometimes some emotions win, say our quest for fairness wins, sometimes other emotions win; the same man can be fair at a time and racist at another time. Since we are locking up a man for the rest of his life, it is only fair for us to make sure that we are certain that the crime is committed beyond doubt. That fair , clean, rational minds were gathered to deliver the justice.

"The dramatic change came only after this one sentence with the rapist having sex with his adopted daughter"

This is where I am surprised. No evidence, but one sentence said in a heated conversation established beyond doubt that a man deserves to be in jail. And that sentence was about "consent", right? Is this the whole proof behind this lengthy sentencing?

I hope justice has been served; it always feels good to believe that truth prevails in the world and Ajay got what he deserved. But what is wrong in finding out how jurors thought, especially when the juror here is so keen to share her views?