Racial discrimination in jury selection facts for kids

Imagine a court case where someone is accused of a crime. A group of people called a jury listens to all the evidence and decides if the person is guilty or not. This is a very important job!

Racial discrimination in jury selection means that people are unfairly kept off a jury because of their race. This is against the law in many places around the world. Even if a jury ends up having people from only one racial group, it's still wrong to choose jurors based on their race. When a jury is made up of only one race, some people might worry if the decision will be fair.

Fair Juries: No Racism Allowed

Choosing a fair jury is super important for justice. Laws in many countries try to stop people from being left out of a jury just because of their race. This helps make sure everyone gets a fair trial.

Juries in Australia

In Australia, it's important that juries are fair to everyone. However, Aboriginal Australians often don't get to be on juries, even in areas where many Aboriginal people live.

Courts have looked at concerns when juries didn't include people from the same social or ethnic background as the person on trial. Current laws say that a jury doesn't have to perfectly match the accused person's background. But, the way the jury pool is chosen must follow the rules.

There's a history of Aboriginal people not being included in jury groups. Some reasons for this include not being registered to vote (which is how jurors are often picked). Others might not respond to official letters asking them to serve. Sometimes, lawyers from either side might also ask for them to be removed.

Studies have shown that Aboriginal Australians face disadvantages in the justice system. For example, they are much more likely to be charged with a crime. They are also much more likely to receive a prison sentence compared to others.

Important Cases in Australia

• In 1983, a 16-year-old Aboriginal boy named John Pat died. Police officers were tried for his death. An all-white jury found them not guilty.
• In 2004, an Aboriginal man named Cameron Doomadgee died while in police care. The police officer involved was later found not guilty by an all-white jury in 2007.
• In 2019, a police officer shot Walpiri man Kumanjayi Walker. In 2022, the officer was found not guilty by a jury that did not include any Indigenous Australians. This was despite 30% of the Northern Territory's population being Aboriginal.

Juries in Canada

Canada has also faced challenges with racial fairness in jury selection. This is especially true for First Nations people. In 2001, a government department stopped sharing lists of First Nations people living on reserves. This was due to privacy worries.

Because of this, First Nations people living on reserves were not properly included on jury lists. This went against a very important court decision from 1991. The Supreme Court of Canada said that having a jury that represents the community is a key part of having a fair trial. The court explained that a jury needs to be fair and represent the wider community. Without this, a jury cannot do its job properly.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada further explained this idea. They said that a person on trial doesn't have a right to have people of their own race or religion on the jury. Instead, they have a right to a fair and honest process for choosing jurors randomly.

The discussion about a "representative right" for juries is still ongoing. In 2018, the Canadian government introduced a new law, Bill C-75. This law stopped lawyers from removing potential jurors without giving a reason. This change helps prevent jurors from being excluded unfairly. Bill C-75 became law on June 21, 2019, which is also National Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada.

Juries in the United States

In the United States, the issue of racial fairness in jury selection has a long history. Laws have been put in place to stop this practice through many court decisions. It is legal to have juries made up of people from only one racial group. However, it is against the law to choose jurors based on their race. Still, when people talk about "all-white juries" or "all-black juries," it can make others wonder if the trial will be truly fair.

Current Rules and Challenges

The Supreme Court of the United States has made it clear that removing a potential juror because of their race is against the law. This denies a person their right to equal protection. However, the court also said that a person on trial is not guaranteed a jury with or without people of any specific race. It is okay to remove jurors for reasons that are not about race. These rules also apply to civil trials and to removing jurors based on gender.

A Look Back in History

After the American Civil War, new amendments to the U.S. Constitution ended slavery. They also gave basic civil rights to African Americans. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 also tried to stop racial discrimination in jury selection. It even set up punishments for court officials who interfered.

In 1880, the Supreme Court ruled that laws stopping black people from serving on juries were illegal. This was because they violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, in another case, the court said that an all-white jury itself wasn't proof that a person's rights were violated. Southern states then found other ways to keep black Americans off juries without having specific laws.

Later, in 1883, the Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In 1896, the famous Plessy v. Ferguson decision allowed for "separate but equal" facilities. This decision also led to rules that kept black people from voting and serving on juries. This meant black people were often excluded from public life, politics, and the justice system.

In the 1931 case of the Scottsboro Boys, nine black youths were accused of a serious crime. Eight of them faced severe punishment. Their defense lawyer argued that black people had been unfairly kept off the jury lists. This case led to two important Supreme Court decisions. In 1935, the Court ruled that people accused of crimes have a right to good legal help. It also ruled that black people could not be systematically kept off juries.

Even after these rulings, the practice of excluding black people from juries continued. In 1985, the Supreme Court heard the case of Batson v. Kentucky. In this case, a prosecutor had removed all four black potential jurors. The court ruled that if a person on trial could show that jurors were removed because of their race, it was a violation of their rights.

However, the Batson ruling did not completely stop the exclusion of black people from juries. It only applied to criminal trials and to prosecutors. It also only applied when the removed juror and the person on trial were of the same race. A court in Mississippi noted in 2004 that racial jury selection was still common, even 20 years after the Batson decision.

In 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot dismiss randomly chosen jury groups just because they lack racial diversity. This ruling came after a judge had dismissed a mostly white jury group in a case involving a black person on trial. The judge had commented on social media about the prosecutor's request to review his decision. For his comments, the judge was suspended and later apologized.