Peremptory Challenges in Criminal Justice System

This article discusses the use of peremptory challenges in the criminal justice system, its restrictions, and the pros and cons of establishing professional jurors. It also highlights the qualities that a jury member should possess for a fair trial.

Running head: CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Peremptory challenges can be defined as the right of an attorney to reject potential jurors without
stating any proper reason at the time of jury selections. For the lack of impartiality both parties of
a proceeding can challenge unlimited number of potential jurors this is known as challenge of
cause. Peremptory challenges, unlike the challenge of cause, provide for impartiality and better
qualification of jury as it allows the attorneys to reject any potential juror for a partiality that can
either be real or imagined. Although Peremptory Challenges provide for impartial jury there are
certain restrictions on the use of this challenge. Further it can be seen that right to peremptory
challenge is not constitutional but statutory. It had been criticized by many that attorneys take
undue advantage of the peremptory challenge to conceal their discriminatory motives against
prospective jurors. As no reasons are needed to be shown for peremptory challenges it had been
used to remove prospective jurors based on race, gender or sexual orientation (LATIMES, 2013).
Peremptory challenges based on race or gender is forbidden by the United State Supreme
Court. In the case Batson v Kentucky (1986) it was prohibited by the United States Supreme
Court that exclusion of prospective jurors based on their race. In the case Edmonson v Leesville
Concrete Company it was held that peremptory challenges used for excluding jurors based on
their race in civil trials are forbidden. In J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B. exclusion of jurors based
on sexual preference was forbidden.
The pros of establishing professional jurors would be that there would be more chance of
fairness of trial. A professional jury with a degree in related field will be trained and
knowledgeable. The cons of professional jurors is that there is a chance for the jurors to be too
much focused on resolving disputes instead of focusing on finding the truth. Present system of
jury enhances civic trust and democratic values whereas a professional jury would not be
considered as a peer.

2CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
I would be in favor of this system as a professional jury would have knowledge in the
field would ensure a trial.
For jury trial for the accusation of embezzlement I would want the juries to possess
certain qualities. These qualities include that the juries would be non-biased, fair and just, have
good knowledge of criminal laws and should be able make good points. A fair and just non-
biased jury member will listen to both the sides and make decisions accordingly. Further
knowledge in criminal law in the jury will help them to understand the legal aspects of the case.
In addition to this a jury’s ability make good points would help to explain their verdicts related to
the case. In the case Allen v United States the use of jury instructions was approved.

3CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Reference
Allen v United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896)
Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1986)
Edmonson v Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S 614 (1991)
J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S 127 (1994)
LATIMES. (2013). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-sep-20-la-ed-peremptory-
challenges-sexual-orientation-20130920-story.html