By Henry F. Fradella, Cassia C. Spohn, Jessica M. Salerno, Shi Yan, Valena Beety, and Rose E. Eerdmans

This article presents the results of a mixed-methods study that surveyed legal system actors in Arizona about their perceptions of the Arizona Supreme Court’s elimination of peremptory challenges in the state. Responses from 195 participants revealed statistically significant differences between members of the bench and bar with regard to their support for the ban, its impact on litigating challenges for cause, and its perceived negative effects on selecting fair and impartial jurors from a representative cross-section of the community. Qualitative analyses provided insights into the divide, with judges expressing support for the ban largely due to perceived increased efficiency, whereas trial attorneys decried the loss of control over jury selection and its corresponding effects on the perceived fairness of trials and case outcomes. The article concludes by exploring the public policy implications of the results, including the impact of the ban on procedural justice.

By Claire Fitzpatrick, Katie Hunter, Jo Staines, Julie Shaw

This article focuses on rarely heard judicial perspectives, and the little explored challenges facing care-experienced girls and women in court. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with judges and magistrates, it reveals how the court process may be a disempowering and inadequate process for both the powerful and the powerless. Using the four elements of procedural justice as a lens to explore this – voice, trust, neutrality and respect – we highlight the immense challenges of achieving these goals for those with histories of being stigmatised and marginalised. In searching for solutions, the concept of ‘judicial rehabilitation’ enables consideration of how we might rehabilitate our systems and imagine a more hopeful approach to justice.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64, 145–161, 2025.