Re-justifying the fair cross section requirement: Equal representation and enfranchisement in the american criminal jury
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This Note proposes a new justification for the fair cross section (FCS) requirement governing criminal jury composition. While the Supreme Court has defended the requirement by invoking demographic conceptions of the jury's legitimacy, many scholars have observed that this approach is at odds with contemporary jury law and practice. This Note argues that courts should instead defend the FCS requirement as a means of ensuring that eligible participants are included in the jury franchise. Besides solving an intractable doctrinal puzzle, an enfranchisement-based approach draws attention to ways in which widespread juror selection practices exclude underrepresented groups and thereby undermine the jury's democratic character.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Albert W. Dzur (2011). “Why American Democracy Needs the Jury Trial”. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (1):87-92.
Thom Brooks (2004). The Right to Trial by Jury. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):197–212.
Jarod Spencer Gonzalez, A Tale of Two Waivers: Waiver of the Jury Waiver Defense Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Jan-Willem Romeijn & David Atkinson (2011). Learning Juror Competence: A Generalized Condorcet Jury Theorem. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):237-262.
Thom Brooks (2004). A Defence of Jury Nullification. Res Publica 10 (4):401-423.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?