如果它像系统性排斥一样行走和像Quacks一样系统性排斥:1997-2014年南卡罗来纳州死刑案件陪审团选择中女性和非裔美国人被免职的后续行动

A. Eisenberg, A. Hritz, C. Royer, John H. Blume
{"title":"如果它像系统性排斥一样行走和像Quacks一样系统性排斥:1997-2014年南卡罗来纳州死刑案件陪审团选择中女性和非裔美国人被免职的后续行动","authors":"A. Eisenberg, A. Hritz, C. Royer, John H. Blume","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/tq75y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article builds on an earlier study analyzing bases and rates of removal of women and African-American jurors in a set of South Carolina capital cases decided between 1997 and 2012. We examine and assess additional data from new perspectives in order to establish a more robust, statistically strengthened response to the original research question: whether, and if so, why, prospective women and African-American jurors were disproportionately removed in different stages of jury selection in a set of South Carolina capital cases. \nThe study and the article it builds on add to decades of empirical research exploring the impacts (or lack thereof) of Batson and related jurisprudence on jury selection practices. The findings from the earlier study persisted with the stronger dataset in this study and are consistent with many previous studies’ findings indicating that capital jury selection procedures serve to systematically siphon off women and African-Americans through the death-qualification process and peremptory strikes. \nKey findings in the earlier study included that the prosecution struck 35% of strike-eligible black potential jurors, accounting for removing 15% of black venire members; that approximately 32% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and that the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 47% of black venire members from serving, compared to those stages preventing a combined 16% of the white venire pool from serving. Those findings have for the most part persisted with the stronger dataset here, with slight variations. Here, the prosecution struck 29% of strike-eligible black potential jurors (the average of a 33% strike rate for black men and 25% for black women), accounting for removing 13% of black venire members; approximately 24% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 42% of black venire members from serving. This is compared to the prosecution striking 12.5% of strike-eligible white potential jurors, which equates to about 7% of the overall white venire pool; and 6.2% of white potential jurors being removed for anti-death views, with the two stages preventing, combined, an approximate 13% of white venire members from serving.","PeriodicalId":82746,"journal":{"name":"South Carolina law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"If It Walks Like Systematic Exclusion and Quacks Like Systematic Exclusion: Follow-Up on Removal of Women and African-Americans in Jury Selection in South Carolina Capital Cases, 1997-2014\",\"authors\":\"A. Eisenberg, A. Hritz, C. Royer, John H. Blume\",\"doi\":\"10.31228/osf.io/tq75y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article builds on an earlier study analyzing bases and rates of removal of women and African-American jurors in a set of South Carolina capital cases decided between 1997 and 2012. We examine and assess additional data from new perspectives in order to establish a more robust, statistically strengthened response to the original research question: whether, and if so, why, prospective women and African-American jurors were disproportionately removed in different stages of jury selection in a set of South Carolina capital cases. \\nThe study and the article it builds on add to decades of empirical research exploring the impacts (or lack thereof) of Batson and related jurisprudence on jury selection practices. The findings from the earlier study persisted with the stronger dataset in this study and are consistent with many previous studies’ findings indicating that capital jury selection procedures serve to systematically siphon off women and African-Americans through the death-qualification process and peremptory strikes. \\nKey findings in the earlier study included that the prosecution struck 35% of strike-eligible black potential jurors, accounting for removing 15% of black venire members; that approximately 32% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and that the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 47% of black venire members from serving, compared to those stages preventing a combined 16% of the white venire pool from serving. Those findings have for the most part persisted with the stronger dataset here, with slight variations. Here, the prosecution struck 29% of strike-eligible black potential jurors (the average of a 33% strike rate for black men and 25% for black women), accounting for removing 13% of black venire members; approximately 24% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 42% of black venire members from serving. This is compared to the prosecution striking 12.5% of strike-eligible white potential jurors, which equates to about 7% of the overall white venire pool; and 6.2% of white potential jurors being removed for anti-death views, with the two stages preventing, combined, an approximate 13% of white venire members from serving.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South Carolina law review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South Carolina law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/tq75y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Carolina law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/tq75y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文建立在一项早期研究的基础上,该研究分析了1997年至2012年间南卡罗来纳州一系列死刑案件中女性和非裔美国人陪审员被免职的依据和比率。我们从新的角度检查和评估了额外的数据,以便对最初的研究问题做出更有力、统计上更有力的回应:在南卡罗来纳州的一系列死刑案件中,在陪审团选择的不同阶段,潜在的女性和非裔美国人陪审员是否被不成比例地除名,如果是,为什么会被除名。这项研究及其所建立的文章补充了数十年来探索巴特森和相关判例对陪审团选择实践的影响(或缺乏影响)的实证研究。早期研究的结果与本研究中更强的数据集相一致,并与之前的许多研究结果一致,这些研究结果表明,死刑陪审团的选择程序有助于通过死亡资格程序和强制性罢工系统地吸走女性和非裔美国人。早期研究的关键发现包括,检方罢免了35%符合罢工条件的黑人潜在陪审员,占15%的黑人鹿肉成员;大约32%的黑鹿肉成员因反对死刑而被除名;这两个阶段的综合作用使总共47%的黑鹿肉成员无法食用,而这些阶段使总共16%的白鹿肉池无法食用。这些发现在很大程度上与这里更强的数据集保持一致,略有变化。在这里,检方罢免了29%符合罢工条件的黑人潜在陪审员(黑人男性的平均罢工率为33%,黑人女性为25%),导致13%的黑人鹿肉成员被罢免;大约24%的黑鹿肉成员因反对死刑而被除名;这两个阶段的综合作用使总共42%的黑鹿肉成员无法服役。相比之下,检方解雇了12.5%符合罢工条件的白人潜在陪审员,这相当于整个白人鹿肉库的7%左右;6.2%的白人潜在陪审员因反死亡观点而被免职,这两个阶段加起来阻止了大约13%的白人陪审员任职。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
If It Walks Like Systematic Exclusion and Quacks Like Systematic Exclusion: Follow-Up on Removal of Women and African-Americans in Jury Selection in South Carolina Capital Cases, 1997-2014
This Article builds on an earlier study analyzing bases and rates of removal of women and African-American jurors in a set of South Carolina capital cases decided between 1997 and 2012. We examine and assess additional data from new perspectives in order to establish a more robust, statistically strengthened response to the original research question: whether, and if so, why, prospective women and African-American jurors were disproportionately removed in different stages of jury selection in a set of South Carolina capital cases. The study and the article it builds on add to decades of empirical research exploring the impacts (or lack thereof) of Batson and related jurisprudence on jury selection practices. The findings from the earlier study persisted with the stronger dataset in this study and are consistent with many previous studies’ findings indicating that capital jury selection procedures serve to systematically siphon off women and African-Americans through the death-qualification process and peremptory strikes. Key findings in the earlier study included that the prosecution struck 35% of strike-eligible black potential jurors, accounting for removing 15% of black venire members; that approximately 32% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and that the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 47% of black venire members from serving, compared to those stages preventing a combined 16% of the white venire pool from serving. Those findings have for the most part persisted with the stronger dataset here, with slight variations. Here, the prosecution struck 29% of strike-eligible black potential jurors (the average of a 33% strike rate for black men and 25% for black women), accounting for removing 13% of black venire members; approximately 24% of black venire members were removed for opposition to the death penalty; and the combined effects of these two stages prevented a total of 42% of black venire members from serving. This is compared to the prosecution striking 12.5% of strike-eligible white potential jurors, which equates to about 7% of the overall white venire pool; and 6.2% of white potential jurors being removed for anti-death views, with the two stages preventing, combined, an approximate 13% of white venire members from serving.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信