Racial Diversity in Jury Selection

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then

Racial differences within the court system of the United States can create various interpretations of laws and the impartiality of such laws. Minorities within this country may believe that the criminal justice system has prejudices and may dismiss the legality of certain laws. Jury nullification is a process in which members of the jury exonerate a person of a guilty verdict although the evidence presented in the case overwhelmingly proves the person’s guilt. People within the jury may believe the laws are not fair, do not apply to the particular case, or they may empathize with the defendant (McNamara & Burns, 2009).

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

There is so many reasons why which I explained throughout the whole paper. I just think that the person is not being treated the way they should be if that was to happen under those grounds. Also it’s kind of like you are judging he jury because you think that they might feel or might not feel a certain way about the case. Your race and gender should have nothing to do with your decision when you are sitting on a jury stand ready to determine how so one will spend the rest of their life. I would never want to be in that situation and I wouldn’t want anyone else to be. I do not think I would feel comfortable being excluded from a jury because of my race. No matter what my race is I should get an opportunity to sit on a jury just like others. Also my gender should not matter because whether the defendant is a male or female, wrong is wrong and there is no sympathizing with someone who is clearly wrong. I am happy that this topic is being talked about because to me it is a big issue. I feel like certain people think that there’s no problem with excluding jurors but in all reality it is. Like I’ve mentioned before, according to sixth amendment you have the right to an impartial trial and when you are excluding jurors for certain reasons that is affecting your rights. Also that leads into the 14th amendment which is the

It is the court’s responsibility to ensure that there is fair number of juries that equally represent the people on trial. The courts should ensure that there is an equal number of people representing the community which we live in. There should be no systemically method of excluding the people of our country from protecting the rights of all people on trial

Throughout history, our nation has been striving to ensure equal treatment for all citizens in our country. Every American now has the right to vote, and there are also discrimination free laws in our Constitution regarding housing, employment, and public communities. As you can see in the media, the amount of minorities holding positions of authority continues to grow each day. Minorities are experiencing wonderful educational and economic opportunities today in our country than ever before in history. While we are advancing in so many areas involving minorities, we are not progressing when it comes to the criminal justice system.

The jury system is a highly admirable and essential concept in Australian law today. It has helped form the nation into a democratic and stable system of government. The system of jury trials is valued as the corner-stone of our free foundations and institutions. Over time, the need and desire for protection of individual rights from society became more and yearned for. The system now shields the individual rights from the invasion of governmental power and is an essential part of the administration of governmental affairs. It appears that as time and years go on, the need for the law to keep up with the needs of society becomes more essential. The law reflects what society wants and within the growing times after 1215, the need for individual

Legal uncertainty, much like the high costs of litigation, is directly related to the American style of a “trial by jury”. Kagan and many of the author’s in The Social Organization of Law mention the unpredictability of juries. They do not leave a written record, which means they do not have to explain their decision, they do not have a written record from other juries to follow, and there is no guaranteed consistency across courts and across time periods. Jurors are often inexperienced in the workings of civil and criminal law, they might be completely uninterested in fully participating in the process, and jurors can hold a bias against certain races, genders, religions, or other specific types of people. Elizabeth Perry, in The Social Organization of the Law, recounts how much blatant emphasis her group of jurors put on race, and Michael Weiss and Karl Zinsmeister cite a numerous amount of other instances where race has played a vital role in the jurors’ conviction of a defendant. The lack of a written record from the jury coupled with the bias and inexperience of some jurors can make it very difficult for a litigant to predict the possible rewards or consequences the could receive from the legal process. When citizens cannot reasonably predict the outcomes of disputes and the cost of these disputes are so high, it leads them to utilize other forms of

This article examines the jury system and the need to make changes. It explains briefly, what a jury is and how it works. I propose that all jurors should be made to pass an intelligence test prior to trial. Then, the opinions of the opposition are addressed, followed by some reasons why jurors should not have their intelligence tested. Finally, I explore the many reasons why my proposal should be put into action.

It is the right of the jury to judge what the facts are, what the law

The criminal justice system is a division of society that is believed to be bias and stereotyped free. Professionals in the legal system find that this hard to believe due to the objectiveness in society. (Fein, Morgan, Norton & Sommers, 1997). Researchers have found that a mixture of variable and the determination within of jurors will often impact the sentencing of criminal trials ( Mazella & Feingold, 1994). Mixture of variables meaning race, age and gender, and other factors that are not related to the actual crime or law, influenced sentencing recommendation (Abwender, Hough, 2001). Ultimately the determination of a juror within themselves to bring justice to all man kind and the individuals position of control can affect the seriousness of the sentencing that is recommended (Freeman, 2006). My hypothesis is the effect of attractiveness and socioeconomic status of a female defendant on severity of sentencing in a trail in which will be examined.

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and

Another advantage of a juror is that they are chosen randomly from the electronic roll, decreasing the chance of any biased race or specific ethnic people being chosen. The ministry of justice published research in 2007, showing that there isn’t any difference between blacks, whites, and minority ethic and responding positively when summed for jury service. Furthermore it also shows how all races and ethnic groups are equally represented among those chosen for jury service. As well as that this research proved that mixed ethic groups of juror’s verdict didn’t discriminate against defendants, based on their ethnicity.