Dumbing Down Juries Discussion

During voir dire, peremptory challenges are used to “dumb down” the jury – this according to many scholars.

Both the prosecution and defense attempt to seat a jury that will give them the best case of winning a case. This means they must remove potential threats to their case from the jury.

So, who is a potential threat?

Anyone who is connected to someone who has been involved in the case (even in the smallest of roles)

Anyone with more than average knowledge of the case Anyone who works in or has a family member working in the criminal justice system (police, attorney, judge, correctional officer, probations, etc.)

Anyone who is highly successful or highly educated – they might influence too much influence over other jury members

Anyone who is well informed So who is left???? Well, many argue juries are largely composed of the undereducated, uniformed, and inexperienced persons (a bit of an elitist view in my humble opinion, but I get the point).

Please follow this link and read the short article titled, “Dumbing Down Juries.” Dumbing Down Juries

The article mentions two possible solutions to the problem of dumbing down juries. Eliminate juries all together or enlist all-volunteer juries. In a discussion post, please evaluate both of these solutions. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Would either solution work? If you had to advocate for one solution over the other, which one would you choose and why?

Your discussion post should be three to four paragraphs in length. It is always a good idea to present you in response to a discussion question in essay format (Introduction, body, and conclusion). If you quote or paraphrase a resource, please use the proper in-text citation and provide a “Reference” list at the end of your discussion post. Please use proper APA format.