Jan 12, 2018 in Law

Supreme Court Decision

The fight for equal treatment by the law has come a long way. This fight, according to Anderson, started as early as in 1900. At this time, the minorities and, in this case, the blacks, were being mistreated by the whites. There was a common call among all blacks asking for equal treatment as the whites on the lines of law. The people who were leading this movement are political activists who dabbed themselves as the progressives (Anderson, 2006). Ever since the abolishment of the slave trade, the blacks who are the minorities gained freedom. This freedom has not been felt, hence pushing efforts of fair representation. In the corridors of justice, it has been claimed that the majority of the people were judged unfairly by the court since the jury arrived at a decision based on the race of the individual. The minorities have since then pushed for a racial balance in the jury for fair judgments.

Racial discrimination is a common phenomenon in most job opportunities; the justice and legal affairs sector have a sizeable share of this. In the selection of the member of the jury, it has been a common occurrence that the interviewing panel is biased and works in a way to ensure that all the selected jurors are form one race. The whites are the preferred race. The blacks are left out, and it is not unusual to find a jury made up of only whites. There has been a move to strike a balance so that an entire jury is made up of people from only one side. This move is aimed at including the minority so that the fairness can be assured.

In the recent past, there have been cases of unfairness in the selection members of the jury. In reference to the work of Bravin (2005), there is a situation when all the black contenders for the jury position were left out intentionally. To ensure that not even a single one of them got to interview, the prosecutor made consistent shuffling to make sure that all the black jurors went into the interview room last. As if this was not enough, on reaching the interview room, they were asked fearfully tricky questions that made them unsuitable for the job. On the other hand, the white juror interviewees were asked the easy questions hence they were made the selected members in the jury leaving out all the blacks who had shown interest in the job (Bravin, 2005).

The above is just one of instances where racial discrimination has played a part in segregation the blacks from the white. This disparity is what the activists are trying to eliminate. It has been proposed that the jury should be reshuffled and even some seats should be reserved specifically for the minorities. Such direction will in the end avoid cases as one cited by Bravin in the trial of Shawn Johnson. Here, he had been accused of killing a teenage girl; the prosecutor made sure that all blacks in the jury had 43 members eliminated. This is a clear discrimination on racial grounds. At the end, the verdict of the defendant was passed by a jury which was made up only of the whites (Bravin, 2005).

In coming up with members of the jury, the selection team can decide to eliminate anyone without giving any reasons as to why that has been done. This act is supported by the peremptory. This factor has been used repeatedly to eliminate the blacks from the jury, and since it cannot be challenged, the black jurors continue to suffer racial discrimination. It has been suggested that this rule should be called off so that there is fair treatment of all the members of the jury.

Racial discrimination is a thing that is passed by the time. It is wise to give equal opportunity to people of all races provided the requirement of the job at hand. Sidelining other people on the basis of their color is discouraging and dehumanizing since no one had a choice to be either black or white. The problem about the issue of racial balance in the jury is the politics that came into play. The first and foremost thing to do in order to have a balance in the jury is to do away with racism. In a situation where the racial discrimination has been done away, everyone can get their position in the jury based on their merits irrespective of their race or whether they are minorities.

In the cases of resistance from the jury, the selection of the members to  deliberate on the verdict of the defendant makes one worry what their decision will be toward a criminal who is not of their race. It is a clear indication that the most probable verdict will be as harsh as possible since the race dislike will have played a role  in the decision making. The discrimination that is experienced in the jury selection is referred to as the structural discrimination. According to Crenshaw, this form of discrimination is aimed at denying the minority group the opportunity to apply for jobs even if they deserve them. This leads to segregation of people thus making them to be like outcasts in the society (Crenshaw, 1995).

The move to reform the structure of the jury and set some seats aside for the minority can help reduce cases of racism. This will give public confidence that the judicial system has credibility and transparency. The reception of this move to make it impartial, to reserve some seats for the minority is undoubtedly going to face many challenges, especially from the majority since it is normal to have just white people being in control of the systems at all times.

Related essays