The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that a defendant is not entitled to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. Although these rulings establish that states are not obligated to use racially mixed juries, they do not prohibit states from doing so. In fact, a number of policymakers and legal scholars have proposed reforms that use racial criteria to promote racial diversity on American juries. Some have suggested that the names of majority race jurors be removed from the jury list (thus ensuring a larger proportion of racial minorities); others have suggested that a certain number of seats on each jury be set aside for racial minorities.How would you justify these reforms to a state legislature?How would an opponent of these reforms respond?Overall, are these good ideas or bad ideas?
On the Discussion Board, respond to the questions below and include an educated explanation for each:If most youth gangs are racially and ethnically homogeneous, should law enforcement use race and ethnic-specific strategies to fight gang formation and control gang crime?On the other hand, should law enforcement strategies be racially and ethnically neutral?What dilemmas are created for police departments that pursue each of these strategies?Is the likely result institutional or contextual discrimination?Which theory of crime do you believe best explains the prevalence of gang crime in the United States?