When a certain group of individuals is systematically excluded from the jury process, it makes it less likely that the verdict will truly reflect the values of the community as a whole. As a result, the public will have less confidence in the jury's verdict. If peremptory challenges are eliminated, the jury will be more representative of the community and, therefore, reflect its values. The verdict, as a result, will be more widely accepted. E. Only Way to Follow Constitutional Mandates Critics argue that the limits on peremptory challenges articulated by Batson and the like are not enough and that peremptory challenges should be eliminated completely, because Batson's antidiscrimination principles cannot be effectively enforced.
Attorneys can easily assert other, nondiscriminatory reasons for striking a juror.
The first argument presented against eliminating peremptory challenges is the fact that the right has existed, almost without question, throughout history. Proponents argue that peremptories have been successful in the past at achieving impartial juries and will continue to be successful in the future. Any disadvantages that may result from their use are outweighed by their value as a tool for creating an impartial jury. It is also argued that the elimination of peremptory challenges places the rights of the excluded juror above the right of the defendant to challenge impartial jurors. However, critics of peremptory challenges point out that the equal protection rights of the jurors are guaranteed by the Constitution, whereas the defendant has no Constitutional right to exercise peremptory challenges.