In an ideal world, were all persons truly "equal", with the same or similar value, viewpoints, and heritage, I do feel that jury selection should be made at random, without regard to ethnicity. .
While there have been cases, such a those studied for this course where juries of non-peers have decided in favor of a plaintiff or defendant with respect to upholding, defining, applying, and confirming equal and civil rights, it has been a slow and arduous process.
Surely congress could, and in essence has, created laws to promote and ensure equality - in actuality these are not fully effective to the extent needed and intended and cannot be enforced to a great degree. No body of law can be so effective as to be aware of and punish every transgression, every "unlawful" thought and act. .
I looked up a few definitions to assist me in answering this question. I was curious as to any variance from my "known" definitions of terms such as "equal", "peer group" and "heritage" from the true definition. I was pretty close, but at the same time surprised at what I see as the straightforwardness of the definitions. For example, Websters dictionary defines a peer group as "a group of people who are of equal status, similar occupation, etc" and an ethnic group as "people who share a distinctive cultural background/characteristics originating from a common national, linguistic, or racial heritage." And "heritage" as "values or traditions passed from earlier generations." .
While the Constitution and Amendments legally (in my opinion theoretically) provide equal rights, in the reality of the day-to-day this is not the case. Per the Constitution, a jury is to be "a body truly representative of the community" selected at random. How can it be so if there is no selection process that specifically searches out prospective jurors that fit the specific case and circumstances in question without defining the community in question?.
