Deselecting Biased Juries
Critics of peremptory-challenge systems commonly contend that they inevitably inflict inequality harm on many excused persons and should be abolished. Ironically, the Supreme Court fueled this argument with its decision in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by raising and endorsing the inequality claim sua sponte and then purporting to solve it with an approach that preserved peremptories. But the article shows that something other than inequality harm to excused persons is actually the central problem. The Court in the Batson cases only obliquely confronted it, because constitutional rulings cannot appropriately resolve it. That problem is the harm to disadvantaged litigants when their opponents use peremptories to secure a one-sided jury. The problem can arise often -- whenever a venire is slanted in favor of one of the parties. The advantaged litigant can use peremptories to seat a large group of favorable jurors regardless of how the disadvantaged litigant exercises its peremptories. However, there is a remedy. Peremptory systems reflect the idea that parties acting in their self-interests can help pursue group neutrality on a jury. Similarly, by conferring on litigants a right to stop peremptories at any time, states can enlist them to determine when opposing parties are using peremptories to promote group bias.
Postconviction Review of Jury Discrimination: Measuring the Effects of Juror Race on Jury Decisions
In the spring of 1992, a state jury with no black members acquitted four white police officers charged with using excessive force to restrain black motorist Rodney King. Many Americans who had watched the relentlessly televised videotape of the officers delivering sixty-one baton blows in eighty-one seconds found the acquittals incredible.2 Some suggested that the defendants would have been convicted if blacks had been on the jury.3 Others considered such assumptions racist; presuming that a verdict may depend on the race of the jurors, they countered, is impermissible.4 Still others argued that no one can
Solidarity. Reflections on an Emerging Concept in Bioethics. Summary
1. References to solidarity are currently on the increase in public discourse. In the UK and beyond, during economic crises and in a political climate where many feel that mutual assistance has lost currency, calls for a new and forceful emphasis on the meaning of solidarity are increasingly heard. Such appeals to solidarity are inevitably linked to ideas about how societies function, and about how and where the boundary between individual, familial, communal and societal spheres of responsibilities should be drawn.