Issue Presented: With the continuing underrepresentation of groups in the juror selection process, what is the cause, and what can be done to obtain a fair cross section of jurors to serve on a jury? Short Answer: The Sixth Amendment provides a cross section guarantee of jurors representing a community, and to provide the defendant with a fair and impartial jury for trial. Statement of Facts: The issue of underrepresentation in a jury can certainly have a negative impact on criminal justice topic as a whole. The underrepresentation can certainly lead to an impartial jury. The underrepresentation can certainly lead to thoughts of racism and prejudice in the criminal justice society. “A racially homogenous jury pool can have a harmful impact …show more content…
The representation of the community must be represented by the jury pool. Thus, if a community is fifty percent African American, and the jury pool is predominately white then that would be in violation of the defendants Sixth Amendment rights. This is issue is a more recent common one than many think. As recently as the early 1960’s courts still used what was known as blue ribbon juries. This allowed mainly educated white males of high moral character to be selected as jurors, thus not a true representation of most communities. In 1967, a survey conducted by federal courts showed as much as sixty percent still relied on this type of selection. However, in 1968 the Jury Selection and Service Act, was accepted. “This system for federal courts, declaring it henceforth to be the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community. In 1975, the Supreme Court extended the ideal of the cross-sectional jury to state courts as well, rul¬ing that the very meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population.” (Abramsson, 2008) With these landmarks passing the right to a fair and impartial jury should be guaranteed to all individuals facing a trial
The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. However, Dexter was in jail for 25 years since 1982, and the appeal was still in process to the Supreme Court. Also, based on the jury selection on exhibit B, document one, there were only white people in the final jury, and African Americans were struck peremptory by prosecution. Dexter did not have an impartial jury because white people may favor his opposed side due to the different race. According to Batson v. Kentucky, the USSC also determined that peremptory challenges used to exclude jurors on the basis of race could be challenged by the defendant. It was not fair for Dexter to not have the same race people as him in the jury. In addition, the Sixth Amendment also says that both federal and state courts must provide a lawyer if the accused cannot afford to hire one. Even though Dexter did have an attorney, his attorney was not organized and prepared. The adequate attorney was not as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment because he admitted that “he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene photographs…has not viewed the prosecution’s witness list.” He had not done anything that could help defend Dexter. He didn't even call witnesses in the court to help Dexter. Strickland v. Washington also supports this because the court upheld the defendant’s conviction that his rights had been violated when his lawyer did not provide enough evidence to avoid the death
Paul Butler discusses this in essay titled “Racially Based Jury Nullification” where he proposes that black juries should acquit black defendants if the crime is considered non-violent/victimless. It is important that we consider this notion, regardless of how extreme it may seem. Butler takes great care to discuss how putting way those who are poor and who are black, is an unjust way of punishing them. When whole communities are not provided with enough resource to become functioning member of societies, exceptions must be made to accommodate such situations. Jury nullification gives power to the juries to act as barriers to those who are abused by the state. When lack of state support forces individuals into crime for the purpose of survival, it must be taken into consideration when deciding upon a verdict. Butler admits that this proposal is “rough” and only acts as in “intermediate plan” for it is clear that such action is meant in a form of a protest against the current process. Racially based jury nullification exists as an eye opener for members of the American justice system, and the communities which are affected by high incarceration/crime rates. It stands to make a point that putting people in jail does not work as a form of deterrence, or “justice”, it is not surprising law enforcement is widely distrusted. With this kept in mind, I
Just Mercy’s Bryan Stevenson exposes some of these disparities woven around his presentation of the Walter McMillian case, and the overrepresentation of African-American men in our criminal justice system. His accounts of actors in the criminal justice system such as Judge Robert E. Lee and the D.A. Tom Chapman who refused to open up the case or provide support regardless of the overwhelmingly amount of inconsistencies found in the case. The fact that there were instances where policemen paid people off to testify falsely against McMillian others on death row significantly supports this perpetuation of racism. For many of the people of color featured in Stevenson’s book, the justice system was unfair to them wrongfully or excessively punishing them for crimes both violent and nonviolent compared to their white counterparts. Racism towards those of color has caused a “lack of concern and responsiveness by police, prosecutors, and victims’ services providers” and ultimately leads to the mass incarceration of this population (Stevenson, 2014, p. 141). Moreover the lack of diversity within the jury system and those in power plays into the already existing racism. African-American men are quickly becoming disenfranchised in our country through such racist biases leading to over 1/3 of this population “missing” from the overall American population because they are within the criminal justice
There have been different outcomes for different racial and gender groups in sentencing and convicting criminals in the United States criminal justice system. Experts have debated the relative importance of different factors that have led to many of these inequalities. Minority defendants are charged with ...
This research essay discusses racial disparities in the sentencing policies and process, which is one of the major factors contributing to the current overrepresentation of minorities in the judicial system, further threatening the African American and Latino communities. This is also evident from the fact that Blacks are almost 7 times more likely to be incarcerated than are Whites (Kartz, 2000). The argument presented in the essay is that how the laws that have been established for sentencing tend to target the people of color more and therefore their chances of ending up on prison are higher than the whites. The essay further goes on to talk about the judges and the prosecutors who due to different factors, tend to make their decisions
...for a capital jury. Research also shows that leaving out certain groups could result in the perception that the justice system is unfair therefore there will not be a fair trial. If one was in the place of one of these prisoners, wouldn’t you feel it was only right to a fair trial, but how can that happen when trials are flawed and unfair from the beginning.
A study of race and jury trials in Florida published last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that “conviction rates for black and white defendants are similar when there is at least some representation of blacks in the jury pool.” But all-white juries are a very different story—they convict blacks 16% more often than they convict whites (2).
In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.
Even though racism has always been a problem since the beginning of time, recently in the United States, there has been a rise in discrimination and violence has been directed towards the African American minority primarily from those in the white majority who believe they are more superior, especially in our criminal justice system. There are many different reasons for the ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system between the majority and the minority, but some key reasons are differential involvement, individual racism, and institutional racism to why racial disparities exist in
Many inequalities exist within the justice system that need to be brought to light and addressed. Statistics show that African American men are arrested more often than females and people of other races. There are some measures that can and need to be taken to reduce the racial disparity in the justice system.
Ward, G., Farrell, A., & Rousseau, D. (2009). Does racial balance in workforce representation yield equal justice? Race relations of sentencing in federal court organizations. Law & Society Review, 43(4), 757-806. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00388.x
Racial discrimination is greatly alive in today’s world. Consider a trial in which an African American male is being accused of murdering a middle aged Caucasian woman. A jury composed completely of middle aged Caucasian women is not impartial which increases bias and prejudice, potentially leading to an unfair verdict. Failure to be knowledgeable of the nature of ones’ charges automatically promote unfairness. The accused would ultimately be clueless and left in the dark throughout the criminal justice process, by not knowing the charges filed against him and why. Witnesses testifying against the defense tend to feel pressured into telling the truth when confronted by the defendant in court (Annenberg, n.d.). Therefore, without this right in place, witnesses of the prosecution may be more subjected into lying to make their case, although they are under oath. Also, the accused may not be allowed to fully tell their side to the story or argue their cases to its fullest potential should they not have this right. In addition, most people living in the United States are not fully aware of their rights or knowledgeable of the criminal justice system and, for this reason, cannot effectively represent themselves in court. Should they have no choice but to, they are likely to receive a more severe punishment, one that a defense attorney may argue to not
This document will examine racial discrimination during jury selections. Beginning with the background history, will demonstrate how racial discriminating came into play. George Stinny, and Emmett Till and other African americans are victims who both had been racially discriminated against. Supreme Court rulings will be a guide to help understand each of the cases and how they each helped change the justice system.
...rought attention to the racial issues in death penalty sentencing which will be explained by relevant data on the subject.
Stevenson, Bryan A. Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection. Rep. Montgomery, Alabama: Equal Justice Initiative, 2010. Print.