Re-Justifying the Fair Cross Section Requirement: Equal Representation and Enfranchisement in the American Criminal Jury

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-05-01 DOI:10.2307/20455768
Richard M. Re
{"title":"Re-Justifying the Fair Cross Section Requirement: Equal Representation and Enfranchisement in the American Criminal Jury","authors":"Richard M. Re","doi":"10.2307/20455768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455768","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公平横截面要求的再论证:美国刑事陪审团的平等代表权与公民权
本说明为刑事陪审团组成的公平横截面(FCS)要求提出了新的理由。虽然最高法院通过引用陪审团合法性的人口统计学概念来为这一要求辩护,但许多学者已经注意到,这种方法与当代陪审团法律和实践不一致。本说明认为,法院应转而为FCS要求辩护,认为这是一种确保合格参与者享有陪审团特权的手段。除了解决一个棘手的理论难题外,以选举权为基础的方法引起了人们的注意,即广泛的陪审员选择实践排除了代表性不足的群体,从而破坏了陪审团的民主特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1