Do you think attorneys should be able to dismiss jurors without stating a specific reason?

The allowance for attorneys to dismiss jurors without stating a specific reason is known as a peremptory challenge. In the American legal system, both prosecutors and defense attorneys are traditionally provided with a limited number of peremptory challenges during the jury selection process of a trial.

There are arguments both in favor of and against the use of peremptory challenges. Advocates suggest that peremptory challenges enable attorneys to remove potential jurors whom they suspect may be biased or less sympathetic to their side, but whom they cannot prove to be objectionable for cause. This, they argue, helps to ensure a more impartial jury and thus a fairer trial.

Opponents, however, argue that peremptory challenges can be used to unfairly skew the jury. They believe that attorneys might use these challenges to eliminate jurors based on racial, gender, or other discriminatory biases, even subconsciously. This concern led to the establishment of legal precedents such as the Batson v. Kentucky decision in 1986, which prohibits the use of peremptory challenges to dismiss jurors solely based on race.

In summary, whether attorneys should be able to dismiss jurors without stating a specific reason is a complex issue that balances the potential for creating an impartial jury against the risk of discrimination and bias.