In jury deliberations, individuals with different backgrounds and perspectives can correct mistaken views or recollections of the evidence presented at trial. Peremptories which eliminate jurors who are minorities, for example, increase the chances that prejudices will go unchallenged during the deliberation process. Because of the lack of information about the jurors available to attorneys when exercising peremptory challenges, peremptory challenges are often based on stereotypes. This is harmful because the exclusion of jurors on such basis perpetuates stereotypes and discrimination. This prejudging of individuals is inconsistent with democratic ideals such as equality and fairness.
Opponents also argue that peremptory challenges compromise the cross-sectional ideal.
The cross-sectional ideal is based on the idea that there is no way to escape from bias. The only way to deal with prejudice is to have a balance of various values and perspectives on the jury. Over 80 million living Americans have been called for jury duty. Because of the use of peremptory challenges, about 30 percent of those potential jurors were sent home. The jurors who are sent home frequently leave with negative views of the justice system.