How difficult do you think it is for defendants to "prove" that a prosecutor was removing potential jury members based on their race or sex, especially if the prosecutor expressed a neutral reason for removing the juror,
such as the prosecutor thought they were "soft on crime" or the prosecutor thought the potential juror "just could not be fair"?
What will be an ideal response?
ANSWER: Answers may vary: It is difficult for defendants to prove a prosecutor's nefarious motives in exercising their peremptory challenges in removing jurors without explanation. When pressed, experienced prosecutors can articulate race or sex neutral reasons for removing prospective jurors that will withstand judicial scrutiny and review.
You might also like to view...
Which of the following are known as the rationales for criminal punishment?
a. Deterrence b. Rehabilitation c. Incapacitation d. Retribution e. All of the above
Explain the concept of victim precipitation. Include Wolfgang's research findings in your discussion
What will be an ideal response?
What are the key elements of the COMPSTAT program discussed in this chapter?
What will be an ideal response?
What is mental incompetency? What are some of the challenges in proving an individual is incompetent or insane?
What will be an ideal response?