量化死刑陪审团选择中黑人和白人陪审员的不同问题

IF 1.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-07-14 DOI:10.1111/jels.12357
Anna Effenberger, John H. Blume, Martin T. Wells
{"title":"量化死刑陪审团选择中黑人和白人陪审员的不同问题","authors":"Anna Effenberger,&nbsp;John H. Blume,&nbsp;Martin T. Wells","doi":"10.1111/jels.12357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Numerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under-represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"20 3","pages":"609-640"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying disparate questioning of Black and White jurors in capital jury selection\",\"authors\":\"Anna Effenberger,&nbsp;John H. Blume,&nbsp;Martin T. Wells\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jels.12357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Numerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under-represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"20 3\",\"pages\":\"609-640\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12357\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12357","RegionNum":2,"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: 0

摘要

许多研究表明,在刑事案件中,陪审团中女性和黑人陪审员的人数不足,特别是在控方寻求判处死刑的情况下。发生这种情况的主要方式,但不是唯一的方式,是检察官通过行使强制质疑权将他们从陪审团中移除。尽管最高法院在30多年前作出裁决,认为以种族(或性别)歧视的方式使用这种挑战违反了第十四条修正案的平等保护条款,但这种做法仍然普遍存在。从那以后的几年里,最高法院、州法院和联邦法院的执行一直不平衡。然而,在最近的几个案件中,最高法院在认定检察官因为种族原因而打击黑人venvener时,部分依据的证据是,控方对黑人和白人venvener的询问方式不同。这种做法的法律术语是“完全不同的质疑”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quantifying disparate questioning of Black and White jurors in capital jury selection

Numerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under-represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Market versus policy responses to novel occupational risks Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana Emotional bargaining after litigation: An experimental study of the Coase theorem Automating Abercrombie: Machine-learning trademark distinctiveness
×
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