Chapter 3 considers peremptory challenges and how they impede the transformation of citizens into jurors. The traditional view of peremptory challenges is that they help to seat an impartial jury. Peremptory challenges permit lawyers to remove a certain number of prospective jurors without having to give a reason. One problem is that lawyers are ill-equipped to uncover subtle juror biases during voir dire. Another problem is that lawyers continue to exercise peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner. According to the transformation view, the jury needs to consist of a diverse group of jurors. The transformation view rejects the goal of trying to weed out subtle biases that cannot really be known in favor of the goal of increasing jury diversity. Eliminating peremptory challenges altogether is the most effective way of stopping discriminatory peremptory challenges, particularly because other methods have fallen short. Even with the elimination of peremptory challenges, for cause challenges should remain. They allow the judge to remove the extreme cases of biased jurors, such as those who admit that they are biased.