Exclusion of Extreme Jurors and Minority Representation: The Effect of Jury Selection Procedures

Andrea Moro and Martin Van der Linden

Papers from arXiv.org

Abstract: We compare two jury selection procedures meant to safeguard against the inclusion of biased jurors that are perceived as causing minorities to be under-represented. The Strike and Replace procedure presents potential jurors one-by-one to the parties, while the Struck procedure presents all potential jurors before the parties exercise their challenges. Struck more effectively excludes extreme jurors but leads to a worse representation of minorities. The advantage of Struck in terms of excluding extremes is sizable in a wide range of cases. In contrast, Strike and Replace better represents minorities only if the minority and majority are polarized. Results are robust to assuming the parties statistically discriminate against jurors based on group identity.

Date: 2021-02, Revised 2023-08
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.07222 Latest version (application/pdf)

Related works:
Working Paper: Exclusion of Extreme Jurors and Minority Representation: The Effect of Jury Selection Procedures (2021)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:2102.07222

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().