|
Peremptory challenge in Anglo-Saxon law refers to a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, ''i.e.'', by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of ''voir dire''. The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing, but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch". ==Controversy== The use of peremptory challenges is controversial as some feel it has been used to undermine the balanced representation on a jury which would occur using random selection. While courts are not allowed to strike out entire groups of people from a particular jury, some would argue that peremptory challenges give individual parties this power. (Yeazell 624). This reach of power has (and still can) allow attorneys to simply strike out groups of people, even if just on a whim (i.e. all football fans may be struck from the jury). (Yeazell 624). However, in the criminal case ''Batson v. Kentucky'', 476 U.S. 79 (1986), it was held that the prosecution's actions of striking groups of people (based on race) violated parties' right to equal protection. This holding was further applied to civil cases in 1991. ''Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.''., 500 U.S. 614 (1991). Despite this, it still remains in use in several jurisdictions and in some cases leads to extensive and expensive jury research, aimed at producing a favorable jury. In the American legal system of the past, attorney's power to exercise peremptory challenges was nearly unlimited; this fueled the controversy over whether this process tampered with the fairness of jury trial. In response, the American judicial system has begun to use restrictions. These restrictions have been put into place in different regions, some by statutes, some by common law (i.e. case decisions). (Yeazell 624) A further criticism of this kind of Jury Selection is that it makes it easier to achieve a conviction, which critics argue leads to a higher chance of wrongful convictions. In most (if not all) jury systems a super-majority (or unanimity) is required to convict (e.g. in the UK over 83% of jurors are required for a conviction - a 10 to 2 majority can be accepted if a unanimous decision cannot be reached). If both sides are able to challenge jurors one would expect the prosecution to try to remove those with a general tendency to wish to acquit. Of course one would expect the defense to challenge those they think have a general tendency to convict but if both sides do their job equally well then the tendency will be to turn what would have been a small majority (one way or the other) into a strong majority in the same direction, potentially causing the proportion to rise over the super-majority threshold required. This effect can be (and often is) partially mitigated by giving the defense more peremptory challenges than the prosecution (e.g. when indicted on a felony in the USA the defense gets 10 challenges to the prosecution’s 6). Source Yeazell, Stephen C. "The Trier and the Trial." Civil Procedure. 8th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2012. 624. Print. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「peremptory challenge」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|