Peremptory Challenge

For
Justice is dead at the moment we affirm this legislation, Senators, that is the cold, hard truth. To

put it simply, the sole idea of a peremptory challenge is an art, not a science.

Senators, it’s for the following reasons that I give you today I urge you to vote in the negation of

this legislation for the following two reasons: One, constitutional connection, and two, I’ll be

responding to the points of the affirmation.

Firstly, Senators, constitutional connection. In today’s debate, the affirmation implies that

peremptory challenges go against the right to a fair and speedy trial, but that is the complete

opposite. According to New York University, School of Law, without peremptory challenges, we

would be living in a world where not a single individual would have preferences, beliefs, or

opinions, making it easier for them to become a juror but by keeping peremptory challenges, we

wouldn’t allow for such an injustice. The main root of the debate is the idea of racial

peremptory challenges but that’s only caused at the faults of the justice system which could

be easily solved otherwise, which is affirmed by Attorney Richard Gabrial in 2017 who states

that “Without the quality of information about a prospective juror’s attitudes and experiences,

attorneys are left with little or scant information about jurors.” Most of all, it’s even affirmed by

Criminal Defense Attorney Toni Messina in 2014 that if an attorney believes that racial

peremptory challenge is in the midst, the attorney is allowed to take action upon the opposing

attorney.

New York Times - Racial Peremptory Challenges, under 20%

Senators when it comes to the impact, by eliminating all peremptory challenges, we’re

leaving an open bubble for unwelcome bias, yes, racial and gender controversy in these

challenges do exist but that’s solved through the Supreme Court and are restrictions,

precautions, and preventions as previously mentioned.

Secondly, Senators, I’ll be responding to the points of the affirmation.

Senators, it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice

everywhere.” The injustice is removing the constitutional right of a peremptory challenge but I’ll

be honest with each Senator in this room that as the Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky

when it comes to race, there is an issue but getting rid of this ability all together is not the

solution. With all due respect to Senator ________, this is not the proper plan of action, Senators,

we must negate for justice cannot be dead.