无因回避 peremptory challenge 

指民事诉讼或者刑事诉讼中的当事人可以不说明理由，拒绝或者阻止某人充任本案陪审员，法院即应更换该陪审员并召集另一陪审员。在美国大多数司法区，无因回避权的行使随案件类型而异，并有次数的限制，当事人在其无因回避权用尽之后，再提出回避请求的，必须说明理由。在英国，原先只有刑事诉讼中的被告人或其辩护律师有权提出无因回避，而且在同一案件中可以要求七名陪审员回避，1977年减少为三名，1988年的《刑事司法法》〔Criminal Justice Act〕最终废除了无因回避。无因回避又称强制回避，是指提起回避申请时不需要对理由详细说明的更不需要提出相关的证据，法官也不得以任何理由拒绝或否认回避请求。无因回避请求也不是无次数限制的，根据《美国联邦刑事诉讼规则》第24条规定，对于陪审员的无因回避，案件的性质不同，回避的次数限制也不同。

Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause: i.e., by giving a reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict. The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is an important safeguard in the judicial process as it allows both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing, but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. 以下为相关例句，以加深对该术语的理解：

例句1

Some view the peremptory challenge as crucial to a fair jury selection process, whereas for others, it is a tool for invidious race or gender discrimination. Nevertheless, debates utilize little empirical data regarding uses of this challenge. Data are reported from observation of a small number of criminal trials in one, largely biracial southeastern county.

一些人认为无因回避对于公正的陪审团选择过程至关重要，而另一些人则认为这是令人反感的种族或性别歧视的工具。然而，关于这一无因回避的使用，辩论很少利用经验数据。数据来自对一个主要由两个种族组成的东南部县的少量刑事审判的观察。

例句2

A trial-by-trial analysis showed that when disparities between venire and jury composition existed, the direction usually pointed to overrepresentation of African Americans and women on juries. Despite limited generalizability, the data suggest the need for a more informed debate about the peremptory challenge’s use in modern criminal trials.

一项逐个审判的分析表明，当陪审团的组成与陪审团之间存在差异时，这种趋势通常指向陪审团中非裔美国人和妇女的比例过高。尽管存在有限的普遍性，数据表明，有必要对无因回避在现代刑事审判中的使用进行更知情的辩论。

例句3

Practically speaking, the peremptory challenge remained an inviolate jury selection tool in the United States until the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky. 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Batson’s prohibition against race-based peremptories was based on two assumptions: (1) a prospective juror’s race can bias jury selection judgments; (2) requiring attorneys to justify suspicious peremptories enables judges to determine whether a challenge is, indeed, race-neutral.

实际上，无因回避在美国一直是不可侵犯的陪审团选择工具，直到最高法院在Batson诉Kentucky一案中作出裁决。美国最高法院判例汇编第476卷第79页（1986年）。Batson禁止基于种族的无因回避规定是基于两个假设：（1）未来陪审员的种族可能会使陪审团的选择判断产生偏见；（2）要求律师证明令人怀疑的无因回避使法官能够确定回避是否确实是种族中立的。

例句4

Most often the practice occurs through a legal tactic called a peremptory challenge, which allows an attorney to strike a potential juror without having to state a reason.

最常见的做法是通过一种被称为无因回避的法律策略，这种策略允许律师在无需说明理由的情况下否决潜在陪审员。

相关知识拓展：

无因回避有因回避的对称。一种回避制度，即申请『到避的人毋需说明回避的原因及理由，英国对陪审官的回避即分为有因回避与无因回避两种。被告人及其辩护律师享有无因回避的申请权利，被告人可要求7名陪审官回避。法国也在《刑事诉讼法典》中规定，被告人或其律师、公设律师（公诉人）有权申请陪审官回避，并不必说明理由。中国不采取无因回避，当事人及其法定代理人申请回避应说明理由，并应符合诉讼法的有关规定。

无因回避制度,当事人提出回避申请不受法定事由的限制,能够有效阻断熟人社会对司法的消极影响；也能有效弥补有因回避制度的立法不足。在我国引入该制度十分必要。虽然我国没有无因回避历史传统和观念,但随着依法治国理念的不断深入和程序公正观念不断转变,无因回避制度的引入具备了思想基础。