{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0334375, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0209375, 'mean_word_length': 5.402, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Where did Black Jurors Go? A Theoretical Synthesis of Racial Disenfranchisement in the Jury System and Jury Selection

The jury system evolved as an essential ingredient of America's judicial framework. In recent years, however, frailties of the jury system in respect to its lack of fairness for women, Blacks, Latinos, and the poor have increasingly become the center of controversy. Federal law is clear that these groups have the right to participate in court as jurors, according to two key concepts: There must be a random selection of jurors, and it must be representative within specified geographic districts wherein a particular court convenes (U.S. 90th Congress House Report, 1968: Section 1961 ). The logic is that qualified residents of a given geographic domain should be part of the pool from which a jury is selected -- on the basis of a chance-opportunity for each to serve on a jury panel. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that any substantial violation of these basic requirements of representativeness in jury selection is a prima facie case of discrimination (Alker & Barnard, 1978; Fukurai & Butler, 1987; Fukarai, Butler, & Krooth, in press; Horowitz, 1980).Challenges concerned with the underrepresentation of minorities have been brought claiming violation of the Sixth Amendment, which requires a representative jury selection from a fair cross-section of the community (Burns, 1987; Jalee, 1968). Yet, the lack of a fair cross-section has been shown in a variety of cases. Careful research indicates that discrimination in jury selection procedures occurs by gender, age, race, and socioeconomic status (Carp, 1982, pp. 257-277; Chevigny, 1975, pp. 157-172; Diamond, 1980, pp. 85-117; Fukurai, Butler, & Huebner-Dimitrius, 1987; Fukurai,Butler, & Krooth, 1991).In terms of the race of em paneled juries, however, the literature deals almost exclusively with the surface phenomenon of the lack of adequate Black representation. Clearly more elaborate research on judicial disenfranchisement is needed to examine the social mechanisms that produce and maintain the subservient condition of Black people, women, and other U.S. citizens with Third World backgrounds. This is particularly important because there has been a paucity of research examining the impact of the social and structural mechanisms that historically have perpetuated the subordination of Blacks in the jury system and jury selection.The next section provides the theoretical synthesis to the problematique of judicial inequities in the jury system and jury selection by examining four specific determinants of disproportionate racial representation on juries: (a) racial discrimination in jury selection procedures, (b) socioeconomic barriers preventing full community participation by Blacks and other racial minorities, (c) judicial discrimination that allows racially demarcated jury representation, and (d) institutional racism and bureaucratic discrimination in perpetuating judicial inequality. The reminder of this article, then, demonstrates that there still exists a racially demarcated jury system that systematically discriminates against Blacks and their full jury participation.