Justification of the Reforms to a State Legislature - Research Paper Example

Whether racial diversification should be promoted or prohibited through reforms in the US judicial system, the possible response is obtained from the respondents, and if these ideas are good or bad, are subjected to more in-depth understanding and critical evaluation of the present scenario.

Justification of the reforms to a state legislature
There have been various reforms initiated to promote racial diversity in the composition of juries so that effective decisions and proper, unbiased judgments can be made in the courtroom. However, the construction of the jurisdiction is also not without the criticism of racial diversity. In American society, minority-class people are often allegedly ascertained to be treated in a biased manner, which further restricts justice based on their rights and privileges as US citizens.

In this respect, the alleged discrimination against minority and majority people has raised various ethical issues which include assaults and movements against the State (Minow, 1992). There are instances where the representatives of the juries have been witnessed to evolve their judgment with elusive goals. This raises significant concern about the rationality of the judgment offered in the courtroom, where jurors belonging to the same race as that of the defendant have been alleged to act with sympathy; while on the other hand, jurors belonging to other races tend to implement harsh treatments for punishing the convicts.

Hence, it can be argued that the failures of appropriate jurisdiction processes are caused mainly due to lack of diversity in the configuration of jurors. Thus, maintaining a higher degree of racial diversity amid juries is most likely to contribute to making effective and racially unbiased judgments in the courtroom. Subsequently, with the involvement of minorities and women as jurors, the judgment process may also obtain an enhanced efficiency in dealing with equality of rights and mitigating biasness to a substantial extent (SAGE Publications, 2013).

An opponent’s response to the reform
There is a need for racial diversity in the jury system so that effective decisions can be made with equality and in an unbiased manner. However, from an opponent’s point of view, with majorities and minorities, as representatives of the jury, the defendants must not be offered the opportunity of selecting as well as composing juries by their races and communal backgrounds. As in the case of Swain v. Alabama - 380 U.S. 202 (1965) (Justia, 1965) and Batson v. Kentucky (No. 84-6263) (LII, 1985), the judiciary composed in the trials of these cases included the majority of jurors belonging from the petitioner's respective racial backgrounds and communities, which led to biasness in the process decision making.

The defendants, with this facility of composing juries based on their choices, will certainly lead to inappropriate legal decisions and procedures. In this concern, the provisions stipulated by the Supreme Court of the US should firmly prohibit defendants from allocating the rights of selecting jury members for the execution of judgment with equality and appropriateness. Furthermore, it stresses that the juries should be selected based on a merit system among majority and minority groups of individuals so that the decisions or judgments are made in an autonomous and unbiased way (Sommers, 2008).

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, it can be comprehended that there should be racial diversity among jurors in a courtroom. In this context, racially diverse jury representatives will facilitate proficiently making effective decisions with unbiased decisions and judgments. Thus, the reforms which are presented by the state legislature about racial diversity in the juries of the US will facilitate making decisions and judgments with equal rights, irrespective of whether defendants belong to a racial minority or majority. In this fashion, the extent of discrimination will be minimized or mitigated. Thus, conclusively, it can be stated that rather than composing the jury with the majority of racially minor jurors, the US jurisdiction must maintain a balance in engaging jurors of the same and different races to that of the defendant to ensure an unbiased judgment. Read More