There are several considerations whenever a jury is to be selected. As a result, the scrutiny that is done to qualify an individual to sit in a particular jury will be based on his personal as well as professional background. The main difference between challenge for a cause and peremptory challenge in selecting jurors is; challenge for a cause is the disqualification of a juror for a specific reason while a peremptory challenge involves a juror being disqualified for no apparent reason. A juror can be disqualified because of not being a US Citizen. If the prospective juror does not understand English language and they are unable to communicate, this will hinder them when it comes to arguing a case.
Other considerations are that the prospective juror must not be underage; they must be over 18 years of age. In addition, the prospective juror should not be related to one of the parties. In a peremptory challenge, an attorney may have facts that the prospective juror is biased against the case, or know one of the parties involved in the case. In a peremptory challenge, the attorney may look at the prospective juror and dismiss them on a personal belief that they will make an unfair ruling. Each party is given a number of strikes in peremptory challenges depending on the state from which the case is being heard. In a challenge for cause, if a prospective juror states that they are unable to be impartial it becomes easy for them to be struck out.
The issue of privacy versus security has become increasingly debatable in the recent past. Most people will lay claim to the fact that each person has the right to having his or her privacy, whereas governing institutions assert that knowledge about a potential security threat is more important. In this regard, the main reason why it was necessary for the Congress to pass Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was so that American citizens could have privacy while communicating.
It was also necessary to enact this act in order to give permission to law enforcers to have access to communication that involve criminal activities. Organized criminal activities require communication, and the enactment of this law was to enable law enforcers and agencies conduct investigation. A judge has to authorize electronic surveillance to be conducted as required in Title III. The congress saw the need to enact Title III in order to guard the privacy of public by issuing instructions to stop the use of electronic surveillance. For the electronic surveillance to be used, the law enforcers are required to follow some guidelines before an approval is made. The guidelines ensure that the requirements are within the Fourth amendment, which protects the privacy rights of American citizens.