Legal term voir dire, its origins, and its purposes

 

Explain the legal term voir dire, its origins, and its purposes.

Detail the process of voir dire, and distinguish between peremptory and discretionary strikes of potential jury members.

Provide an opinion of whether or not the process of voir dire serves its stated ends.

Create improvements in the current system of voir dire to ensure fair and impartial jurors for criminal trials.

Explain whether or not a defendant is entitled to a “fair” or a perfect jury.

Distinguish between peremptory strikes of jurors vs. strikes for cause of potential jurors.

Sample Solution

The term “voir dire” comes from the Anglo-Norman language, with “voir” deriving from Latin verum, meaning “[that which is] true.” The phrase has historically been used in legal contexts, particularly in relation to jury selection and determining the admissibility of evidence or competency of witnesses or jurors. Voir dire in law, process of questioning by which members of a jury are selected from a large panel, or venire, of prospective jurors. The veniremen are questioned by the judge or by the attorneys for the respective parties. The voir dire attempts to detect bias or preconceived notions of guilt or innocence on the part of the veniremen. The parties, including the prosecution in a criminal case, may challenge potential jurors and dismiss an unlimited number for cause. They also have a limited number of peremptory challenges, which enable them to dismiss a juror without giving a reason.

tecting Against Birth Defects”, discussed in class, the company had policies that prohibited women without proof of infertility from working with chemicals associated with birth defects. I disagree with the policy of this company because it discriminates on the basis of gender. Although the risks associated with the children of women working around these chemicals was higher, the offspring’s of men also faced similar risks. It is unfair to have this policy in place only for women. A fair policy would have been demanding proof of infertility irrespective of gender. The company will need to protect itself from future litigations if a child was born with defects. Although the company could have clearly stated the risks involved to all employees regarding birth defects, it does not protect the company against future lawsuits by the offspring’s of these workers.

Discrimination against gender or race in any culture should be legally prohibited regardless of country or culture. When it comes to customer preference, as seen in the second case where the less qualified man was considered to be hired over the more qualified woman, the question for the company lies in who will create greater value for the shareholders? In Japanese culture, women are not typically seen as sales personnel and this could have led to a loss in sales for the company. I believe that since this isn’t a common occurrence, it wouldn’t be fair for the qualified woman to lose the opportunity for the job just due to her gender. If customers did in fact not respond well to the fact that she was a woman and the company lost sales due to this, it would be fair for the company to hire the man. In this case, I would suggest hiring both the candidates on a trial bases and the better performer should get the job. The woman would definitely have to overcome more hurdles than the man, but for the company, the bottom line would matter. A company’s duty is to its shareholders, but it cannot ignore other stakeholders in the process. I also believe that perceptions and customers preferences evolve, and hiring a woman might lead to a short term loss, but if the woman is given enough time to prove herself and change customer preferences, this could lead to the long term benefits of having a more qualified employee.

I do believe customer preferences should be considered in the hiring practice but only if it has proven effects on the economic value generated by the decision. Discrimination based on gender, race, color, sex or national origin should not be permitted anywhere in the world. Education is the key to changing customer preferences, perceptions and culture to enable people all around the world to treat every human equally. This starts with a change in mindset and I believe this will eventually be instilled in the generations to come. As Sheryl Sandberg famously said “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders.”

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.