Racial Mixed Jurry Reforms

The rest of the jury realized the boy’s race was not a fact of the matter. The condition the boy was raised was not completely certain but as the jury even walked through every witness’s perspective; they were attempting to be as realistic as possible. The 10th juror was a racist but his perspective was useful nonetheless by teaching a lesson. This responsible approach resulted from an impartial jury with different perspectives and in law reviews such as, “Diversity and the Civil Jury”; it is made clear just how legal and important impartial juries can be. “The right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community has mostly been expounded upon in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial in criminal cases, but has been applied to civil cases as well.’ In order to ensure that juries serve “as instruments of public justice,” this requirement is designed to create “a body truly representative of the community” (Carbone 840). America is very diverse so it makes sense that a jury should reflect such a mixed society and leave racism at the door.

The jury system of a trial is an essential element of the democratic process. It attempts to secure fairness in the justice system. Traditionally, the jury system has been viewed as a cornerstone of common law procedure. However, the use of the system of trial by jury is on the decline. Today, its use differs, depending on whether (a) it is a civil or criminal matter, and (b) in criminal matters, whether it is a summary or an indictable offence.

The social composition of the judiciary does matter, the importance played on ensuring a diverse judiciary. Ensuring that a judiciary is diverse by way of equality act 2010 – Protects people from discrimination in the workplace and wider society. And Human Rights Act

In the Justice System there are a lot of flaws that affect many people of color, and from past history, it has shown how these practices can lead to very unfortunate events, one of these practices is racial profiling. Racial profiling is when law enforcement uses race and ethnicity as grounds to determine if someone, typically of color, is guilty of doing something illegal. Racial profiling is a major problem in this country, this as well affects many citizens that are mainly of color because law enforcement usually sees them as targets, and it is important to improve and fixed this issue because there are many tragic incidents that have been caused of racial profiling.

Racial profiling is a very prevalent issue within the criminal justice system that is quite controversial, but there is a significant number of evidence that shows that racial profiling has been present since the 1600’s and continues to be a significant issue. Racial profiling is evident in the criminal justice system in various ways such as in interrogations, jury selection, misleading statistics, stops, and immigration laws. Racial profiling within interrogations and jury selection can be seen with the Brandley v. Keeshan case. Racial profiling within statistics can be seen in instances where the numbers focus on arrests and incarcerations that do not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Stops are seen as evidence showing racial profiling with a personal experience, and lastly, immigration laws are seen as showing racial profiling by the encounter of a Mexican American women had with an officer in Arizona.

According to Alexander peremptory strikes are when “Both prosecutors and defense attorneys are permitted to strike “peremptorily” jurors they don’t like…” (Alexander p.121) In other words attorneys can eliminate any juror they wish just because they don’t like. Ideally peremptory strikes were supposed to help trails be fair, but realistically attorneys have been using it to dismiss jurors based on stereotypes, prejudices, and hunch. The only thing the attorneys need to make sure that they have a great justification why they want to dismiss the juror and it can be simple as they are too young/old, being single, and even for wearing sunglasses. Alexander believes that peremptory strikes are use more than anything to discriminate against minority races.

The jury represents the voice of the people, regardless, juries are ethnically un-diverse, consist heavily of certain age groups and members of certain socioeconomic statuses. To ensure better representativeness, two specific reforms can be implemented. First, making avoiding jury duty more difficult. The list of excuses in the Act can be reduced to achieve this. Additionally, the reforms must address the racial diversity in juries. According to Israel, parties are likely to attempt to exclude Indigenous and other ethnic minorities from in the selection process (1998). However, for the jury to represent the voice of the people it must be racially diverse, as Australia is a very multicultural country. As a result, a possible reform is making it more difficult for the parties to object to certain jurors. To rectify the issue of a lack of competence in juries, a solution is to expand the kinds of cases that a judge-only trials. At present, for example, complicated tax and fraud cases require a judge-only trial. A reform is to make it possible for further kinds of cases to be added. An alternative reform is to allow an independent lawyer to explain issues to the jury outside of court sessions, rather than relying on the judges’ instructions alone. The lawyer could identify any misunderstandings and correct them. Overall, it is necessary for reforms to be put in place to address

Racial disparity in the sentencing process of the criminal justice system also exists because of racial jurors. To eliminate the suspensions of racial disparity of racial jurors the jury will select at least one African-American to serve for the jury. A percentage of African-Americans oppose capital punishment (Tabak, 1999, p. 6). Prosecutors commonly discriminate against African-Americans during challenges of discretions and blatantly abuse the powers of prosecutors. Juries predominantly use more Whites in every trial is inappropriate on the levels of the criminal justice system. Americans have rights to a trial by jury of peers and has the right not to exclude minorities in the selection of a jury. Excluding minorities in a jury of an individual’s peers is a violation of an objective and fair trial for a defendant.

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

The issue at hand is whether the use of peremptory challenges to remove a potential juror form the jury pool based on the race violates the equal protection

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

Juries exists in the criminal trial to listen to the case presented to them and, as a third, non-bias party, decide beyond reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. For the use of a trial by juror to be effective, no bias should exists in the jurors judgments, the jurors should understand clearly their role and key legal terms, and the jury system should represent the communities standards and views whilst upholding the rights of the accused and society and remain cost and time effective.

Sommers, S. (2009, January 1). On the Obstacles to Jury Diversity. In www.thejuryepert.com. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from

Hiroshi Fukurai, recipient of the UCSC Service Recognition Award in 2015, as well as Chancellor’s Achievement Award for Diversity in 2014 has done extensive research in Sociology and Legal studies in order to highlight the importance of indigenous knowledge, environmental justice and the role of social movements. His most recent work emphasizes how lack of racially mixed juries has allocated a colorblind justice system, which has been perpetuated for centuries,We then began to talk about one of his latest books, Race in the Jury Box:

Having a diverse bench is critical to having a successful criminal justice system. The United States court system follows a presumption of innocence, meaning those who enter a courtroom are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not always found in the courtroom. Every courtroom actor, whether consciously or unconsciously, has a bias towards the defendant and may even presume guilt before the case begins. This is especially true when there is a white judge acting on cases involving a defendant who is a part of the minority. Judges who represent the minority are not only unbiased towards defendants of their own race, but they also bring new perspectives to the bench (Haire & Moyer, 2015). They present ideas, understandings, and