Examples Of Peremptory Challenges Are Ruining The Justice System

Peremptory Challenges are Ruining the Justice System

Cassidy Watson, an African American male, has been wrongfully accused in the state of Alabama of murdering 10-year-old Mya Morris. Today, he sits within a courtroom awaiting his hearing to begin. Moments pass, and the plaintiff’s lawyer has struck a juror from the jury; this juror is the only African American seated at the mostly Caucasian jury. In response, the judge asks the lawyer to explain why he struck the juror. The lawyer stated that the African American woman was “too vocal about her opinions.” Cassidy let out a long sigh and waited for the judge to give a response. In Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, he tells the story of a black man who was

Litigants issue strikes against jurors behind the grounds of stereotypical assumptions. Typically, these assumptions—whether intentional or unintentional—are racist or discriminatory. In his article “How lawyers misuse peremptory challenges to nix Black jurors,” Jeffrey Abramson, professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin, writes “Prosecutors believe that Black jurors are pro-defense, anti-police, racially loyal in cases involving Black defendants, and routinely opposed to the death penalty” (Abramson). This denotes that many litigants put a label over all Black jurors, which is not justifiable. Because said litigants label all Blacks with the same stereotypical standards, most Blacks are struck from the jury pool, thus, creating an unfair trial for the defendant. Not only are strikes issued on the basis of race, but they are also issued for many other reasons which include but are not limited to gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ethnicity. Kelso L. Anderson, associate for Litigation News, states in her article “Will Striking Peremptory Challenges Remove Bias in Juries?”, “[A] prosecut[or] struck a juror who referenced a ‘domestic partner’” (Anderson). People frequently use this phrase

Foremost, peremptory challenges are issued without a reason provided. Whenever a challenge is suspected of misuse, defendants typically will present an argument against said challenge. Unfortunately, litigants can easily provide an explanation for their questionable strike against a potential juror. According to the Death Penalty Information Center’s article, “Discrimination in Jury Selection,” “Prosecutors have been trained to provide race-neutral justifications to strike jurors of color from their cases.” This signifies just how determined the justice system is to cover up their true intentions. Because of these race-neutral explanations, it is very difficult to prove a prosecutor’s true intentions. Some of these race-neutral explanations have been successfully argued, no matter how grotesque they may seem. One example, presented in Valena Beety’s “Arizona bill allowing peremptory challenges would kill reform,” states that “Justifiable reasons to strike people of color in Arizona include: the juror was ‘too quiet,’ ‘a slob,’ or would not understand ‘slang terminology and lingo, cop talk’” (Beety). This is a clear example of racism in the justice system. The abolishment of these peremptory challenges would benefit the stability of the justice