Unbiased Jury, Voir Dire, and Fairness - Essay Example

?UNBIASED JURY, VOIR DIRE AND FAIRNESS Task: Unbiased Jury, Voir Dire and Fairness A jury is a group of people who are sworn in a court of law to deliberate and deliver impartial judgments and verdicts to cases presented to them in a court of law (Frederick, 2005). The jury is expected to ascertain the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented to them and pronounces guilt or innocence to a party, after which they deliver their judgment. In jury selection in contemporary times, the jury is selected from local people in the community by utilization of various methodologies. Attorneys then subject the selected jury people to inquiries for credibility. Voir dire is the process where the defense or the prosecution question the jurors as a means of examination or evaluation whether they are biased or not. The attorney of the trial judge conducts this process (McCormick & Starr, 2001). In order to obtain an unbiased jury from a multitude of applicants is critically important in today justice system as it ensures that credible personalities are selected to serve fairly in their jurisdiction. Gone are the days when the selecting panel would ask prospective jury applicants whether they were able to serve faithfully and without bias or favoritism. Contemporarily, the selection process entails a free discussion and open-ended deliberations and discussions on their life experiences, feelings and opinions regarding key issues in their operation on cases. Jurors usually enter the courtroom with preconceived notions due to their past life experiences, which can affect their evaluation and performance on cases. The process of voir dire assists a big deal in bringing problematic jurors back to track if they are prone to interpreting cases against the required standards. The jury ought to be educated on contemporary issues regarding current cases. A firm rapport also ought to be inculcated in the entire jury acquaintance process. Subjection of open-ended inquiries on the prospective jury and proper communication in the course of voir dire enhances confidence. Fairness as a virtue should be stressed on the jurors as much as it should be instilled in the selection process (McCormick & Starr, 2001). The jury is an extremely important body in the justice system. Without the jury, the entire administration son the part of law maintenance in their jurisdiction. Thus, it is imperative to observe the inception of unbiased jurypersons. In the course of selection of credible, adept and free from bias prospective juries, the processes of credible and fair jury selection and voir dire are consummate and profoundly required. Upholding these practices is extremely important as it educates the prospective jury to avoid personal conveniences and notions from past e4xperiebnces from their past experiences (McCormick & Starr, 2001). This educates them to be fair and highly considerate in their jurisdictions and rulings. Joint education and voir dire, since it consists of the open forum approach, dispels the fears of the jury members and makes them adept in teamwork and appreciation of fellow jurors’ opinions regarding particular vases presented under their dispensation. As a matter of fact, the processes of preparing the prospective jury and voir dire assist profoundly in the enforcement of a great deal of information into the the subconscious of the individuals on different approaches to case interpretation and negotiations in their jurisdiction and rulings. It ensures that only those individuals experienced in law and adeptly capable of interpreting it are incepted into the jury for effective functionality. In the entire law related fields, credibility, impartiality, professionalism, honesty and sanity are consummately profound characteristics that the practitioners in the fields are expected to possess. The jurors and the jurors’ recruiters are not an exception. Thus, therefore numerous related pitfalls and drawbacks ought to be avoided and evaded at all costs, to deliver the best out of the resultant body of jurors as well as the service delivered in the long run (Frederick, 2005). Finding the underlying cause of this process, the jury selectio9n and recruiting process is the most fundamental area that has to be critically examined and transformed accordingly to obtain an able body of jurors and avoid criticism. Contemporarily, there have been a couple of cases about unfair practices such as racial discrimination and in the jury selection and impartiality on jury cases. These pitfalls ought to be eliminated and profoundly avoided to prevent drawbacks in this field of justice. All members of all races with the qualifications ought to be given equivalent opportunities and considerations in the selection process. Jury selection should be a process that reflects lawfulness, fairness and impartiality as an example to the other sectors concerned with this discipline. Thus, such tradeoffs should be dispelled and absolute fairness, lawfulness and impartiality upheld (Frederick, 2005). The jury is an important body in the case evaluations in the law courts as they are the body that comes up or devise the eventual outcome of the civil trial case under resolution. Juries, therefore, ought to be evaluators and individuals who operate on facts and not on personal conveniences regarding cases. Their jurisdiction is not supposed to be influenced by external influences or conveniences. Thus, such a high integrity requirement stipulation requires all jurors to be free from bias, in such a way that their pronouncement is not in any way connected to conscious, unconscious and externally induced conveniences. Unbiased jurors confer numerous advantages in terms of case evaluation and jurisdiction presentation in the law courts. Jur5ors can determine whether an individual will be imprisoned or not by simply giving their views and jurisdiction. If in any case, the jury is unbiased, an impartial and fair ruling is delivered in favor of the innocent, hence upholding lawfulness (Free, 2003). In fact, unbiased juries confer peace in the long run since the guilty people are placed on lockdown through the jurors’ ruling, preventing future lawlessness cases and resultantly resulting into lawfulness and fairness which is a virtue. Modern criminal law, thus, requires credible, honest, unbiased and active jurors who play a consummate role in eliminating criminal activities and lawlessness in the future society. The US constitution stipulates and spells out exhaustive guidelines on the due process and the entire jury selection procession. Regarding the due process, the constitution stipulates that the state must venerate and duly respect personal rights granted by the law of the land. If the state violates this stipulation, the person has a right to refer to the law and subject the state under charges for violating the rule of law. Thus, in relation to the selection of jurors, the state is expected to respect all the individual rights and has the obligation not to violate them whatsoever (Free, 2003). Therefore, the government must not physically and in either way abuse individuals or rather deprive them of their property, liberty and life. This policy extends further to those who select and recruit the jurors in such a way that they should respect the right of every qualified and potential applicant without regard to their race or relationship with the selectors. The same due process applies in the court situation where the jurors should be impartial and fair in their jurisdictions. The jurors are advised by the judge in the course of the proceedings on how to behave accordingly, upholding fairness and observing the law (Frederick, 2005). Racial prejudice in selections of jurors is a contemporary issue critically facing the justice system. In order to understand the problem in a better way, let us look into the related Supreme Court cases as succinctly expounded. Strauder v. West Virginia is the first case. Strauder was a black and was convicted of murder by the West Virginia court, which consisted purely of white jurors. He appealed and contended that the court violated the equal; protection clause, a part of the US constitution (McCormick & Starr, 2001). It was later on confirmed that indeed racial prejudiced was practiced as the equal protection clause assured the colored race of equal enjoyment of their rights as the whites. In this case, Strauder did not have any defendant of his race and thus the law was violated in that case. Thus, full representation had to be inculcated and this led to end in racial prejudice (Frederick, 2005). The second case, Snyder v. Louisiana, is a Supreme Court case that involved racial prejudice in selection of jury in a death penalty case. During the deliberations concerning Snyder’s case, the judge allowed the prosecutor to peremptorily; challenge and strike on the African American jurors, eliminating them from the jury on racial basis, as Snyder argued. Thus, the convict pressed on and appealed, spelling out that the court concentrated more on the jury selection on their discriminatory cases than his reasoning in personal defense. This was confirmed, according to the Batson v. Kentucky, which the peremptory strikes were not supposed to be taken on racial basis. Justice Alito confirmed that the same reasons given by the prosecutions for striking the black jurors also applied to the white jurors but the prosecution did not strike (Free, 2003). The third case involved issues relating to peremptory challenges on jurors based on racial reasons. The Supreme Court ruled out that such practices violated the constitutional clause on equal protection. Batson was the petitioner in this case. He was charged with burglary and during the voir dire; the prosecution peremptorily struck and dismissed four potential African American jurors, leaving the jury with only white members. Batson appealed on this issue and sought for justice on his part. He wanted the clause of equal protection to grant him representation by jurors of his race. He was imprisoned for 5 years instead and later was put on parole after continued criminal conduct after being completing his sentence. In conclusion, it is succinctly notable that jury selection is an important practice and ought to be done fairly and without racial prejudice and partiality. Thus, the US constitution clearly stipulates the equal protection by the law, inclusive of the due process. The voir dire should also be conducted fairly and impartially in order to make an adept jury (Free, 2003). References McCormick, M. and Starr, V. (2001). Jury selection. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online. Free, M. (2003). Racial issues in criminal justice: the case of African Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Frederick, J. (2005). Mastering voir dire and jury selection: gaining an edge in questioning and ... Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Read More