The Jury System by Kenneth Jost
Are major changes needed? Should peremptory challenges be abolished?
1. What is at issue? What is the claim behind this issue? Why is this important now? What impact will it have on the future?
- The proceeding issue deals with whether or not to abolish the peremptory challenges within the judicial system. Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to dismiss potential jurors without the inclusion of a reason as to why. The author includes one side that favors the abolishment of peremptory challenges due to the possibility of subjecting biases. Though, the author also includes the opposing point of view, including that of a prosecuting attorney, Michael D. Barnes. Barnes believes that peremptory challenges should …show more content…
As a working prosecutor and an officer of the court, Barnes is to ensure that both the people and the accused receive a fair trial. In saying so, the best way that he knows how to achieve this is through the present judicial system, with all of its periodic aberrations. – Eliminating peremptory challenges if there is low confidence in the judicial court system may cause a greater downfall concerning trust. Perhaps jurors may not admit to any form of biases and/or fail to disclose accurate information without the process summoned under oath. – Questions concerning whether persons with specific mindsets on certain issues should be placed on the jury stand of similar court cases that opposes the persons’ principles (DWI case and the prison abolitionists). In such instances, those persons should not. Therefore, without peremptory challenges, the specter of unfairness could linger over the verdicts and further eroding community confidence in the justice …show more content…
Though, another may believe in the more liberal concept that perfection includes the inclusion of flaws, which can become quite convincing. In saying so, there is no one policy or law that should be narrowly subjected to the entirety of all judicial court cases. There is a need for some degree of flexibility in accordance to each individual court case, for no two cases are equal and just as no two persons are exactly alike, not even identical twins. A middle ground regarding the differing sides of the abolishment of peremptory challenges may be to keep the component a part of the judicial process with the requirement of impartial reasoning for dismissal of potential jurors. If not for the dismissal for cause, there can be an honorable third party’s involvement in jury selection instead of the prosecutors or defense lawyers of the specific case doing so themselves. Additionally, the starting number of potential candidates for a trial should be put into account depending on how big or how small the case may be, as high-profile cases may need more jurors than locally smaller cases. Consequently, those that are for the proposal will benefit in a way that both sides are less likely to be victims of discriminatory accusations. Furthermore, those that are against the proposal may move forward, though with a few modifications to the original idea of peremptory challenges. Those that are for the argument
Are major changes needed? Should peremptory challenges be abolished?
1. What is at issue? What is the claim behind this issue? Why is this important now? What impact will it have on the future?
- The proceeding issue deals with whether or not to abolish the peremptory challenges within the judicial system. Peremptory challenges allow attorneys to dismiss potential jurors without the inclusion of a reason as to why. The author includes one side that favors the abolishment of peremptory challenges due to the possibility of subjecting biases. Though, the author also includes the opposing point of view, including that of a prosecuting attorney, Michael D. Barnes. Barnes believes that peremptory challenges should …show more content…
As a working prosecutor and an officer of the court, Barnes is to ensure that both the people and the accused receive a fair trial. In saying so, the best way that he knows how to achieve this is through the present judicial system, with all of its periodic aberrations. – Eliminating peremptory challenges if there is low confidence in the judicial court system may cause a greater downfall concerning trust. Perhaps jurors may not admit to any form of biases and/or fail to disclose accurate information without the process summoned under oath. – Questions concerning whether persons with specific mindsets on certain issues should be placed on the jury stand of similar court cases that opposes the persons’ principles (DWI case and the prison abolitionists). In such instances, those persons should not. Therefore, without peremptory challenges, the specter of unfairness could linger over the verdicts and further eroding community confidence in the justice …show more content…
Though, another may believe in the more liberal concept that perfection includes the inclusion of flaws, which can become quite convincing. In saying so, there is no one policy or law that should be narrowly subjected to the entirety of all judicial court cases. There is a need for some degree of flexibility in accordance to each individual court case, for no two cases are equal and just as no two persons are exactly alike, not even identical twins. A middle ground regarding the differing sides of the abolishment of peremptory challenges may be to keep the component a part of the judicial process with the requirement of impartial reasoning for dismissal of potential jurors. If not for the dismissal for cause, there can be an honorable third party’s involvement in jury selection instead of the prosecutors or defense lawyers of the specific case doing so themselves. Additionally, the starting number of potential candidates for a trial should be put into account depending on how big or how small the case may be, as high-profile cases may need more jurors than locally smaller cases. Consequently, those that are for the proposal will benefit in a way that both sides are less likely to be victims of discriminatory accusations. Furthermore, those that are against the proposal may move forward, though with a few modifications to the original idea of peremptory challenges. Those that are for the argument