The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed in. Jurors must be unbiased and the jury must consist of a representative cross-section of the community.
In 2-3 paragraphs (5-9 sentences each) address the following. What is YOUR definition of an unbiased jury? Based on your definition, what are Two ways we could go about recruiting such as a jury? Given what we have discussed about social identities (sex, gender, race, economic status, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, ability, etc.), is a COMPLETELY unbiased or impartial jury possible? Explain?
(Note: This section will require critical thinking and analysis. This post should not include only surface level analysis. Further, the purpose of this post is to amicably discuss historical and current problems related to minority representation and jury selection. The goal of this post is NOT to promote abstract attacks on certain minority groups or tout non-credible theses or statistics about minority crime. As this is a justice course, you will need to dig deep regarding justice as it relates to minority groups, and their relationships with social, economic, and political inequality).
*Note: In addition to an original post, you should create at least ONE student reply. Your reply should not merely be summarizing your classmates words or responding with “Cool post” or “I agree”, your reply should be thoughtful and engaging.
*Note: While posts are solely based on your own perceptions, they should be coherent and address the prompt (e.g.) you will lose points for going off on tangents on unrelated topics. Please see the Discussion Board Grading Rubric for more details on grading standards for posts.
Search entries or author