• Law -> Criminal Law and Justice

• 0 Comment

Should the use of peremptory challenges in jury selection be eliminated?

Catalina Scopham

Hey there,

Interesting question! In my opinion, I do think that the use of peremptory challenges in jury selection should be eliminated. Let me explain my reasoning.

Firstly, peremptory challenges have been used in the past to exclude potential jurors based on discriminatory factors such as race, gender, and religion. This goes against the principle of fair and impartial trial by jury. The use of these challenges can lead to a bias jury and an unfair trial for the defendant.

Secondly, some lawyers may use peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors who they believe may sympathize with the opposing party or who may have certain beliefs or experiences that could affect their decision-making. While these challenges may seem strategic, they can also be used to create a one-sided and unfair jury.

Lastly, the use of peremptory challenges can also result in longer and more costly trials. Lawyers may take longer to select a jury due to the limited number of challenges they have, and this can result in delays and increased expenses that could have been avoided.

In conclusion, while peremptory challenges may serve as a tool for lawyers to select a favorable jury, they can also have negative effects on the trial process. To promote fairness and impartiality in the legal system, I believe that the use of peremptory challenges should be eliminated.

Hope this helps! Let me know your thoughts on the topic.

Take care.