The article “Dumbing Down Juries” raises concerns about how attorneys often remove jurors with specialized knowledge or professional expertise during jury selection—favoring those perceived as more easily influenced. While this strategy may serve legal tactics, it raises important questions about fairness, competence, and transparency in the judicial process.
In the context of our module on accountability in justice systems, to what extent does the exclusion of knowledgeable or experienced jurors during voir dire undermine the principles of justice and public accountability?
Instructions:
Step 1. Reflect on the Article:
- What are the main concerns raised by the exclusion of educated or expert jurors?
- Why might attorneys avoid jurors with backgrounds in law, medicine, or civil rights?
Step 2. Analyze Through the Lens of Accountability:
- How does jury selection affect judicial transparency and fairness?
- Should a justice system be held accountable for who makes decisions in the courtroom (e.g., jurors)?
- What is the potential impact on case outcomes when more critical or informed jurors are removed?
Step 3. Engage with Reform Ideas:
- The article proposes solutions like restricting peremptory challenges or incentivizing voluntary jury service. Do these promote accountability?
- Should there be a public interest standard in jury selection to ensure better representation and decision-making?
Initial posts are due by Thursday, 11:59 pm
Suggested word count: 250 -300 words
