Talk:Jury selection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Double Standards allowed during Voir Dire

The article states:

Generally, defense attorneys exclude jurors who have professions or backgrounds similar to that of the victim and who could thus feel an emotional link to them, while prosecuting attorneys exclude jurors who might show affinity to the defendant. However, in the United States, if the prosecution excludes a minority group member and the defense challenges, under Batson rules the prosecution must provide a race-neutral reason for the exclusion (later extended by court rulings to gender-neutral reasons as well).

It sounds to me that prospective jurors are allowed to have an emotional link to the defendant through race or gender but not through profession. What about sexuality or religion? It sounds to me like this is a blatant double standard as some kinds of emotional attachments are allowed and others are not. I think this double standard should be pointed out in more detail. 72.209.12.250 (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jury Nullification

I think this article should also point out that voir dire serves to increase conviction rates by eliminating the possibility of jury nullification. The state is in effect stacking the deck in favor of convictions by eliminating those who take issue with the law the defendant is being prosecuted under.

A Decision Quest/National Law Journal poll in October 1998 found that three out of four Americans eligible to serve on a jury say they would act on their own beliefs of right and wrong regardless of legal instructions from a judge.

Instead realizing that there are many bad laws on the books that people would not see others prosecuted under, judges and prosecutors have jurors removed who are honest enough to admit to believing justice is about right and wrong, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, not was is legal/illegal.

When 3/4 Americans would legally have to be removed during voir dire one should recognize that voir dire is frakked up and no longer giving defendants an impartial jury of their peers.

I do no see these points being raised in this article. 72.209.12.250 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --chaser - t 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)