Population Dynamics and Racial and Ethnic Minority Representation in Jury Pools: How Jurisprudence Designed to Reduce Bias can Backfire
The 6th Amendment to the United States constitution guarantees all defendants in criminal trials the right to an impartial jury of their peers. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled impartiality to mean that the pool of potential jurors must reflect a fair cross-section (FCS) of the community, for instan...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Beteiligte: | ; |
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| In: |
Race and social problems
Jahr: 2025, Band: 17, Heft: 1, Seiten: 24-40 |
| Online-Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Schlagwörter: |
| Zusammenfassung: | The 6th Amendment to the United States constitution guarantees all defendants in criminal trials the right to an impartial jury of their peers. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled impartiality to mean that the pool of potential jurors must reflect a fair cross-section (FCS) of the community, for instance, that the proportion of Black jurors approximates the proportion of Black residents in the jurisdiction in which a case is adjudicated. In this study, we show that the prevailing standards for evaluating the constitutionality of racial and ethnic minority representation in jury pools are impossible to meet in over three quarters of U.S. counties. Further, we demonstrate striking systematic differences in indicators of social and economic well-being between counties where the FCS requirement could be met versus where it would not. We conclude by discussing the implications of current FCS jurisprudence, highlighting how a legal standard meant to reduce bias in the criminal legal system functions to further racial and ethnic inequality. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1867-1756 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s12552-024-09425-x |