Question

Evidence suggesting the prosecutors use their peremptory challenges to preserve all-white juries in cases involving African-American or Hispanic defendants has led some commentators to call for the elimination of the peremptory challenge. a) What do you think is the strongest argument in favor of eliminating the peremptory challenge? b) In favor of retaining it?

Answer 1

Answer.

Peremptory challenge is the right of both the plaintiff and defendant in a jury trial to have a juror dismissed before the trial with out a reason. The challenge is distinguished from a "challenge for cause" (reason) based on the potential juror admitting a form of bias, being acquainted with the defendant, plaintiff, or one of the attorneys.

This is guaranteed During jury selection so that potential jurors can be excused "for cause" when the judge finds that they cannot decide the case impartially. Independently, both th3 prosecutor and the dependent may exercise some limited number of peremptory strikes to excuse additional jurors without offering a reason. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that peremptory challenges cannot be used to systematically strike prospective jurors from the panel on the basis of race or gender. Peremptory challenges can be eliminated if either side can "raise an inference" that the strike was racially based. They appear to violate the Equal Protection Clause, tantamount to the de jure exclusion of Afro-Americans from jury service and therefore they would need to be eliminated at best as they would make the justice system unconstitutional.

However, there are also sufficient situations where peremptory challenge becomes a necessity such as when criminal defendant has no right to a jury on which members of his race and potential acquaintances or peers are represented, and in such cases peremptory challenge can ensure trial before an impartial jury by removing the jurors who show enough reasons to be biased in their judgement.