The article discusses the historical relationship between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges, arguing that peremptory challenges have always had a curative purpose. The Supreme Court has not addressed the problem of curative peremptory challenges very often, and on the few occasions when it has, it has not given very clear guidance. Before examining the curative use of peremptory challenges and the effect, if any, that an imbalance in peremptory challenges should have on the integrity of criminal convictions, the article considers the general notions of harmless error, structural error, and plain error. In conclusion, the article observes that jury selection errors whose only impact is a net reduction in peremptory challenges are harmless. When a criminal defendant uses a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror who should have been removed for cause by the trial court, the defendant is using peremptory challenges in precisely the curative manner for which they were intended. Notes