Justifying Reforms in the Ways States Selects Jurors to Insure Fairness to All.
Joanne, Bartlett
AIU Online Justifying Reforms in the Ways States Selects Jurors to Insure Fairness to All. The Supreme Court has always defended it law that a defendant is not entitle to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his or her own race. But they do not stop states from doing so on their own. Some law maker has suggested that names of majority races jurors be removed from the jury list and others that a certain number of seats on jury are set aside for racial minorities. The only way to justify the use of removing the names of majority race jurors from the jury list might be to have them to really take a good look at how the jurors are selected so they can see that under current law it is impossible for African American, Latinos, and Asian American to really be judged by juries of their peers because of the way that the jurors are selected. A nonprofit law organization by the name of Equal Justice Initiative took a close look at jury selection procedures in about ten states and found out that African American is underrepresented in jury pool in 75% of the counties in the United States Latinos and Asian Americans are barred in 90% of counties (Equal Justice Initiative). This lack of racial diversity and the law in the selecting of jurors make it impossible for racial minorities in places like Cumming Ga... Which have been an all-white county for decades (Los Angeles Times).Klan groups live here you would need for these reform to be in places in counties like this to insure that you do have jurors of your peers that will be fair by listening to the facts of a case and giving a just verdict based only on the evidence given to them and I do not think that a person of another race could get a fair trial in a states, cities, or towns made up of a population that is not diverts. And others my arguer that on the other hand that this would be violating people rights
By allowing these reforms by excluding member of a certain race would be the same as discrimination and by saying that you have to be this race to serve as a jurors also is discrimination suggesting that a certain amount of seats on each jury is set aside for racial minorities would mean that the jury no longer represent your community so you would no longer be judge by a jury of your peers being judge by your peers do not mean you have to have all men, women, whites, blacks etc. The being judge by your peers happen when the juror is selected from an impartial jury pool of randomly selected people from your community.
And this is made harder when you and may be 20 other family of different race live in your counties.
Overall I think that the excluding of member from the jury because they are not a particular race is discrimination because there are people out there from these difference races that would be fair by listening to the facts of a case and giving a just verdict base only on the evidence given to them. I think that setting a certain number of set aside for racial minorities would insure that all jurors are racially mixed juries I think this way everyone wins because research have found that all-white juries tends to spend less time deliberating make more errors and consider fewer perspectives (Equal Justice Initiative).
The jury system is supposed to install fairness and increase confidence in the legal system as a whole but it don't wide spread discrimination remains in the jury selection procedures. The only way that I see to protect both the defendant’s right to be tried by a jury of his peers and for every individual right to be a part of this process in this legal system there have to be new reform made and ever one will need to be on the same page and I think that when there is a jury needed it must be mixed racially so that it can be fair in I do not mean by throwing in one here and one there. I do not think the removal of majority race jurors name is fair but there is a better way but because of the current policy that are in place and the ones that are in power to change them I think it is going to take some time and it will be a hard fight to get them to implement new reforms because of counties like Cumming Ga. and this is not the only counties like this you have counties that are made up of all other race and they are not diverts. We have let this go a long so long that people think that this is how the law is supposed to work it took the Rodney King case to shed some light on the injustice of the courts but like everything else the ones with power only figure out a way to make it look like everything is all right and then go back to their old ways this is why we need new reforms to make sure that the juror selection will be fair for all. Reference

Reference

Los Angeles Time (1987): Klan Group Stone Marchers in All-White County of Georgia Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-18/news/mn-5713_1_forsyth-county
American Bar Association: How Courts Work. Selecting the Jury. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryselect.html
Gabbidon, S.L. Greene, H.T. (2013) .Race and Crime ,Third Edition Retrieved from http://wow.coursesmart.com/9781452202600/?CSTenantKey=aiuniv&spid=
Cornell University Law School (1992). Right to Trial by Impartial Jury Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt6frag3_user.html
Cornell Universty Law School (1992). SIXTH AMENDMENT. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment
Equal Justice Initiative (2010). Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A continuing Legacy. Retrieved from http://www.eji.org/node/397