Iga Machnik

The Problem with a Peremptory Challange – a Tool of Racial Discrimination Within American Jury Selection Process

Introduction

The problem with a peremptory challange – a tool of racial discrimination within american jury selection process. Explore how peremptory challenges enable racial discrimination in American jury selection. Analyze the Batson Rule's flaws and consider alternatives to ensure fair trials.

Abstract

Jury duty serves as one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, for it encourages direct citizen participation. Yet, the process of selecting its members is characterised by a flaw in form of a peremptory challenge — a tool with considerable potential for abuse since it permits covert discrimination against members of visible minority groups. Despite not being a procedural right protected by the Constitution of the United States, peremptories have entered the canon of provisions thought to be necessary for preserving the fairness of trial due to their long history of employment in the legal system. In the late 1980s, the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky ruled the exclusion of jurors solely on the basis of their race to be unconstitutional and established the first preventative procedural standard against dubious usage of peremptories in form of the Batson Rule. The effectiveness of the said standard remains questionable, for it did not successfully deal with racial discrimination during voir dire but only enabled to formally object to the questionable juror’s strike. This paper aims to put racial discrimination within the American jury system into a historical perspective, analyze the arguments of both the supporters and the opponents of further peremptory challenge usage and consider probable alternatives that might be implemented to successfully prevent discriminatory practices within the American jury selection process.

Review

This paper addresses a critical and long-standing issue within the American justice system: the pervasive problem of racial discrimination in jury selection, specifically through the use of peremptory challenges. The abstract effectively highlights the inherent tension between jury duty as a cornerstone of democracy and the procedural flaw that allows for covert discrimination against visible minority groups. By asserting that peremptory challenges, despite their historical entrenchment and perceived necessity for trial fairness, possess considerable potential for abuse, the paper sets a compelling stage for its central argument. The critique of the *Batson v. Kentucky* ruling and the Batson Rule's questionable effectiveness in truly preventing discrimination, rather than merely enabling formal objections, establishes a clear problem that warrants the proposed in-depth examination. The proposed methodology outlined in the abstract appears robust and comprehensive. The paper aims to contextualize racial discrimination within the American jury system historically, which is crucial for understanding the roots and evolution of this complex issue. Furthermore, the intention to analyze arguments from both supporters and opponents of peremptory challenges suggests a balanced and nuanced discussion, moving beyond a one-sided critique to explore the various facets of this legal tool. Most importantly, the commitment to considering "probable alternatives that might be implemented to successfully prevent discriminatory practices" demonstrates a forward-looking approach, seeking not only to diagnose the problem but also to contribute constructive solutions to enhance fairness and integrity in the jury selection process. Overall, this paper promises to be a timely and significant contribution to scholarship on civil rights, judicial reform, and legal procedure. The abstract clearly articulates a pertinent problem, outlines a comprehensive analytical framework, and indicates a valuable aim of proposing solutions to a persistent systemic flaw. Given the critical importance of fair and unbiased jury selection to the legitimacy of the justice system, this research holds strong potential to inform legal discourse and policy debates. Provided the execution matches the ambition laid out in the abstract, the paper appears well-positioned to offer valuable insights into a deeply embedded challenge within American jurisprudence.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.