Originally posted by no1marauderHas that always (or at least, for a long time) been the case? If not, when did it start?
I would say that pre-emptory challenges are used in every case and challenges for case in almost every case in the American system. Jury selection can take days or longer.
Originally posted by TeinosukePeremptory challenges date to Roman times. Under Roman law, both parties proposed up to one hundred jurors each. Then, each side could strike 50 jurors, leaving one hundred jurors to decide the case. Under English common law, the defendant was allowed to exercise 35 peremptory challenges; the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges was unlimited. In 1305, however, Parliament abolished the prosecution's right to peremptories. Finally, in 1988, Parliament abolished the defendant's right to peremptories, because it found that attorneys were using them to stack the jury with individuals biased towards the defendant.
Has that always (or at least, for a long time) been the case? If not, when did it start?
The peremptory challenge system has always existed in the United States, and it survived virtually without question until the twentieth century. The preservation of this tradition is one of the reasons asserted by supporters of the peremptory challenge to continue its use.
http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/juryper.html
The article is a bit hostile to peremptory challenges; there are many reasons other than mere tradition that they have been retained (the article mentions a few).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour complaint was partially about people not being represented somehow. My answer was that people who have views not shared by many others cannot expect to be significantly represented in a democracy. I'm not sure what your objection to that fact is.
I don't get what you mean, care to elaborate?
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the link to that extremely informative article. But although the right of peremptory challenge dates back to classical times, a right can exist while being rarely invoked, and my question was more enquiring as to whether the use of peremptory challenge has increased in the US in recent years. In the UK, as I mentioned, jurors can be challenged but it doesn't happen very often.
Peremptory challenges date to Roman times. Under Roman law, both parties proposed up to one hundred jurors each. Then, each side could strike 50 jurors, leaving one hundred jurors to decide the case. Under English common law, the defendant was allowed to exercise 35 peremptory challenges; the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges was unlimited. In 1 ...[text shortened]... reasons other than mere tradition that they have been retained (the article mentions a few).
Originally posted by no1marauderBut they can expect that in the case of proportional representation, so it's hardly a "fact".
Your complaint was partially about people not being represented somehow. My answer was that people who have views not shared by many others cannot expect to be significantly represented in a democracy. I'm not sure what your objection to that fact is.
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeNothing has changed in the last 20 years. From my discussions with people who practiced in the 60's or 70's or even before, peremptory challenges have always been used aggressively at least in this geographical area.
Thanks for the link to that extremely informative article. But although the right of peremptory challenge dates back to classical times, a right can exist while being rarely invoked, and my question was more enquiring as to whether the use of peremptory challenge has increased in the US in recent years. In the UK, as I mentioned, jurors can be challenged but it doesn't happen very often.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell certainly a system used in Albania and Algeria must assure good governance and maximum representation.
I'm not sure. But there are many who have one with only a small vote threshold (~5% or less).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation
Originally posted by no1marauderProportional representation has its merits. First past the post has its merits. Both systems have flaws too.
And how many democracies have enacted a pure proportional system?
However, most countries have a bicameral legislature, and it would surely be quite easy to have one house elected by FPTP and one by PR. Certainly, I'd rather that than stick with the daft upper house we have here in Britain!