For both the prosecution and defense, the composition of the jury is paramount in achieving a desired outcome. Jurors are summoned across a wide section of the population - namely, anyone who is a U.S. citizen, is registered to vote, and has a valid drivers license in locale at which the court proceedings are being held. How is it then, that despite such loose (and therefore inclusive) requirements that there are imbalances in the racial composition of juries (this imbalance extends to gender, age, and socioeconomic status as well)?
The reason for underrepresentation of minorities on juries throughout the United States is found in juror evaluations. Jurors are sifted through in a multiple stage selection process which is intended to determine their suitability. First, jurors can be excused for a number of personal reasons such as economic hardship, mobility, and a failure to respond to a summons. Second, potential jurors are brought into the courtroom where they are questioned in order to determine any preconceived notions they may have about the case. The judge may choose to excuse any person he finds impartial. As well, prosecutors are allowed to dismiss a limited number of jurors for any particular reason in a process called the peremptory challenge. Although the ultimate goal of such a stringent selection process is to ensure justice, it can often be manipulated by prosectuors, especially with the possibilities granted by the peremptory challenge.
In the jury selection pool, minorities are frequently the ones left behind after the straining process is complete. In order to maintain a job, minorities are more likely to request exemption from jury duty. Then, prosecutors can further concentrate the number of minority jurors through peremptory challenges, which results in minority underrepresentation.
Notwithstanding this fact, minorities are better represented in juries today than ever before. Integral to this advancement is the supreme court decision in Batson v. Kentucky. Batson was a black man, convicted by an all white jury of burglary. In the juror selection process, black jurors were excused with no reasoning by the prosecution under the peremptory challenge. Batson claimed that, because the jury wasn't representative, it was an unfair trial, which violated equal protection under the 14th amendment. The court ruled in his favor, requiring that prosecutors provide a "a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors". Prior to this decision (1985) prosecutors were able to dismiss without reason which explains the inequality in cases like the Emmett Till case.
The verdict in Batson v. Kentucky is critical for the securement of a fair trial for minorities. It has paved a path to equality. However, the verdict has still left room for prosecutors to continue to remove minority jurors - they only need a plausible reason for doing so (which is rarely questioned). It is a good step, which has been reaffirmed recently in Miller-El v. Dretke. The next measure in securing minority rights is the removal of the peremptory challenge, which largely affects the racial composition of juries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Wow I am amzazrd that it took until 1985 to get part of this unjustice removed. It makes me wonder how many recieved impartial juries in the past and to this day. Do prosecutors challenge the jurors based on their political views? Or I guess my real question is on what actual grounds can a lawyer remove a judge? Does he have to prove that he is impartial or does he just have to think that he is impartial. I really like this topic and the interesting point on how many minorities have to exempt themselves merely to keep their jobs. Does the government not have any rules to guarantee that a person keeps their job if they arew called up for jury duty?
I'm not surprised about how long it took to get impartiality in cases. In fact, I don't believe that there is impartiality now. Why do lawyers decide impartiality? Most lawyers base the whole of their jury selection behind what will win the case for them. Therefore they are not even selecting jurors based on impartiality. They are selecting juries based on strict bias that will sway a trial toward their probable outcome.
Doesn't a judge choose if he will allow himself to be removed? In the West Memphis Three retrials, the judge from the first trial has presided over all remaining trials. The defense has asked for a new jusdge, but he always denies the request citing that "He knows the case." Is there a procedure that can overturn the judge doing this? Then again if there was, then lawyers could have any judge they didn't see fit, even for irrational reasons, removed.
I didn't know that people were scared out of jury duty at the fear of unemplyment. That is new to me.
I feel very well informed on your issue and your discussion of the argument. You could probably explain peremptory challenge and the manipulations of prosecutors more. However, I thought you did a good job explaining the cause of the composition of the jury, and in explaining your reasons for this.
Great post. I followed it completely. I thought it flowed really well. Although one thing I felt was a little unclear. You talked about how the prosecutors could concentrate the jury through peremptory challenge because the minorities usually have to skip out on jury duty due to the fact of their jobs. But I felt like those were two different reasons. I felt like you were saying the minorities were underrepresented bc of social status and needed to work and then you were trying to mix that in with the prosecutor excusing them. It was just a bit confusing. But good job!!
Hey.. nice writing and research. Good use of 'guiding' terms to explain the causal process. To make the post better, you might want to have a paragraph specially for the causal effect, using even stronger and clearer guidance. And another paragraph to explain other factors, like minorities and their jobs, that also explain why minorities usually don't get represented. Finally, you can spend a paragraph to explain how the peremptory challenge was started and for what purpose, and how it hinders minorities today.
Post a Comment