13 ms·

California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

142 points by jelliclesfarm 7y ago

c3534l 7y ago
I feel like former convicts will take their role very seriously. More seriously than other people might.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  That's naive
Bostonian 7y ago
The title is misleading -- someone convicted of a felony is still a felon after being released from prison. Juries create labelled data -- defendants are found guilty or not guilty -- but how do we know what characteristics of juries are likely to result in the most accurate verdicts, since we don't have a measure of whether defendants are truly guilty or innocent? Has anyone looked at what jury characteristics predict overturning of verdicts on appeal?
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  I think this is more about signalling to people who served their time in prison that we want to re-integrate them into society than it is about changing how court cases will be decided. And, even if that wasn't the case, everyone has a constitutional right to a jury of their peers - not a jury of everyone @Bostonion thinks is a good person. In our existing system, both sides get to rule out a set number of jurors for whatever reason they want (unless can be shown that the lawyers intended to discriminate on a few set characteristics), and then an unlimited amount of jurors if they can show the jurors might have any kind of bias, through a process called jury selection or voir dire. This is a giant industry, encompassing everything from body language experts to data analysis. For example, here's what TransUnion had to say about their new big data product: > With little time to research potential jurors using manual methods, attorneys and consultants traditionally pick juries based on what they can observe — age, gender, answers to background questions during voir dire and body language — leading to jury pools selected at least partially based on stereotypes and hunches. > Cutting-edge research tools like TLOxp® by TransUnion make it easy and affordable to quickly find more accurate, actionable information on potential jurors. TLOxp uses proprietary linking algorithms to scour 125 billion records on an estimated 95% of the U.S. population within seconds, uncovering insightful information and establishing patterns and relationships. https://www.tlo.com/blog/smarter-data-is-a-game-changer-for-selecting-juries https://www.tlo.com/blog/smarter-data-is-a-game-changer-for-... In other words, you aren't the first person to consider that people on juries might be biased, and in fact in my opinion we go far too far in the other direction. Furthermore, juries don't (generally) just get to decide whatever they want, they are instructed in what factors they are allowed to evaluate, and what tests they must use, by the judge. An appeal can (generally) only challenge the process, not the decision by the jurors. Here's what the article had to say about this: > The new law won’t interfere with this process. The attorneys or judge retain authority to dismiss a potential juror with a felony conviction from a particular case, for cause — but a felony conviction does not, in and of itself, constitute cause. In other words, either side could come up with a vague reason they didn't like a former felon and get them off the jury even if they had already used up their free strikes.
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  > The title is misleading -- someone convicted of a felony is still a felon after being released from prison. Perhaps it's time for the US to follow the lead of most of its common law brethren in the Commonwealth and get rid of the terms "misdemeanour" and "felony".
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Not like it means much to do that, you are subject to most of the same restrictions anyways in other english speaking countries, just under a different name than "felony".
    - ajdlinux 7y ago
      The US is a bit special in how it restricts the rights of ex-felons though - it's the only major common law jurisdiction I can think of off the top of my head where some states restrict the voting rights of ex-prisoners.
  - ta09876 7y ago
    What's wrong with having words for "small crime" and "big crime"?
    - ajdlinux 7y ago
      I'm more concerned with having a word like "felon" to categorise _people_ into "small criminals" and "big criminals", rather than saying what it is they were actually convicted of. Other common law jurisdictions get by just fine by categorising small crimes as "summary" and larger ones as "indictable" for the purposes of criminal procedure (not that this categorisation maps all that well in the US where the right to jury trials is more entrenched). There isn't a comparable term to "felon", which is fine, because it's much better to talk about a "convicted murderer" or "convicted drug trafficker" or "convicted drink driver". And laws imposing restrictions on ex-prisoners generally apply to specific crimes, or to crimes carrying particular sentences with the threshold varying depending on the type of restriction. At that point, there just isn't much need for the word "felony".
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
I’m normally automatically skeptical of anything passed by our legislature here (which passes laws to ban plastic straws and water in restaurants but couldn’t care less about feces and mental illness all over the streets). For this, I’m totally 100% behind the decision. A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Even with the drawbacks it will never get better. We need to protect it and honor it, and that includes letting those who have felt the strong arm of the law decide whether the law itself is applied fairly to other people.
- bitwize 7y ago
  The thing about California is that the feces problem and the plastic ban are related. San Francisco has had a high ambient homeless population for some time, it's just that when it came time to go poop, they would go in a plastic bag and throw it in a dumpster. And then the city banned plastic bags...
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Paper bags are still available
    - bitwize 7y ago
      They're not viable for the following reasons: * Paper can't adequately and sanitarily hold poop * It's flimsy, recycled paper which is even worse * They cost $0.05 a bag, which is pretty steep for a population many of whom have literally no money Go to a dog park and see what people pick up their dogs' poop with -- paper or plastic?
- shadowmore 7y ago
  If it offsets the vast amounts of delusional people who have absolutely no concept of the real world and all its dangers, then I'm all for it. People who've been to prison are much more likely to be grounded in visceral reality and weigh things properly compared to much of our increasingly sheltered society, especially along the coasts.
mindslight 7y ago
No, it won't. If they just mean the state judiciary will summon felons to spend a day at the courthouse, sure. But prosecutors will surely be using their vetoes on such jurors due to their experience with the system, as they do with anyone that speaks a hint about jury nullification or otherwise seems hard to lead.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Prosecutors and defense council don't get an infinite amount of vetoes
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    One side will probably prioritize booting interesting people like felons though, so they still won't actually serve on the jury of criminal trials as often.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    There is a limit on peremptory challenges, for which no reason needs to be given. But I don't think there is a limit on for-cause dismissals.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      If dismissing people for felonies was a valid cause by itself, then this law would be completely meaningless, that wouldn't escape a judge overseeing the proceedings.
      - gnicholas 7y ago
        I would guess that some felons might make it onto a jury with a felony that was (1) a long time ago, (2) completely unrelated to the felony alleged in the current trial, and (3) generally regarded to be a more minor crime. But I would guess that few felons will make it onto juries, and the ones that do will endure embarrassing questions during jury selections, in front of a room full of their peers, about their past crimes and whether or not they are now sufficiently honest citizens.
gnicholas 7y ago
I've served on a jury in CA and have seen jury selection on a couple occasions. Based on what I've seen, I think it will remain highly unlikely that a convicted felon will make their way onto a jury of a criminal trial (civil trials might be more likely). In the standard questionnaire that prospective jurors are given, they are asked if they or members of their immediate family have been victims of a crime, or if they work in law enforcement. Now that felons will be part of the jury pool, they will undoubtedly also ask if they have been convicted of a crime themselves. In my experience, judges will themselves excuse jurors who have family in law enforcement (parent, spouse, sibling), which means the lawyers don't have to bother using a challenge on it. I would expect the same will happen with many/most criminal convictions, especially when they are related to the crime that is alleged. And even when they are unrelated, I expect the prosecutor would dig in and ask questions like "have your feelings about respect for the law changed since you were convicted of embezzlement?" — even if it's an assault trial. These questions will be uncomfortable for the potential jurors, who may feel like they're being humiliated and put on trial all over again. I would not want to be a felon being questioned for jury selection by a prosecutor. note: my experience is in San Mateo county jury selection as a private citizen. I am also a former lawyer, and almost all of my lawyer friends have never made it past jury selection. I served once, only because I emphasized that I practiced tax law, which is very different from criminal law.
- jedberg 7y ago
  I think it's kind of random. Last time I was on jury selection, the defendant, a black man, was accused of robbing a bank at gunpoint. The woman being questioned for jury duty was asked about being a victim of crime. She said, "I've been a bank teller for over 20 years. I've been robbed at gunpoint three times, and every time it was a black man. Black men are always guilty". I was shocked she would say such a thing, but even more shocked to see her back the next day. She wasn't dismissed.
  - tobyhinloopen 7y ago
    Was he guilty?
jimbob45 7y ago
Why is anyone ever barred from jury duty outside of severe disability? Voir dire seems to exist to mitigate any conceivable juror issues.
- wahern 7y ago
  Once upon a time jury duty was considered a privilege, a way for upstanding citizens to shape their community. Losing that privilege was a social punishment, and a way to ensure justice was aspirational--lenient and harsh according to how the community expected itself to behave and evolve. The Magna Carta, which secured the right to a jury trial, only concerned the rights of the landed gentry. The jury trial was about the landed class having the right to deliberate on the disputes of its own members. It was copied from the system used for matters pertaining to Church lands and clerical crimes; matters that were required to be settled by other clergy through a parallel court system administered by the Church, whose rights and powers were derived from papal authority. This notion isn't entirely antiquated today. Some scholars argue that one of the reasons the American criminal justice system has become so harsh on minorities is because juries are usually composed of members who live in separate communities from the accused. Their interests are in tamping down on crime, with little incentive to consider the disruption caused by wrenching away men and women from the labor pool and their families. According to this perspective, we should maybe return to a system where jury pools are called from much smaller geographical districts--literally the neighborhood where the crime occurred. When share cropping was still a thing in the South, before penal labor became a state enterprise, and even during slavery, juries were often quite lenient toward the working class, including blacks. (Conviction rates were much closer to parity between white and black defendants!) Jury members knew that the accused likely worked for someone else in the community, and owed debts to others; unnecessary punishment[1] of the accused indirectly punished jury members' friends and families. Things worked similarly at the turn of the 19th century in major cities, when ethnic communities were compact and courts weren't centralized downtown. Jail time meant leaving a wife and kids without needed income, creating an immediate burden on the community (e.g. more expenditures from the neighborhood church's coffers). If juries were again composed of members from the community directly impacted by a crime, then it might still make sense to penalize felons from serving. Juries would once again be more about the community policing itself, as opposed to today where we principally conceive of juries as impartial and fair (in the roulette sense) adjudicators of guilt and gatekeepers of retributive justice. Fortunately, most crime is still local. "Black-on-black" is a catchphrase today, but crime is generally neighbor-on-neighbor everywhere. [1] Of course, if you were black then "unnecessary" would need to take into account the need to sow fear in the black community. But so long as slavery and share cropping kept blacks tied to the plantations and farms, that was far less common than in later years when they became more mobile.
Proven 7y ago
That’s great, East Coast socialists aren’t ruining the state fast enough, so this will help. Illegal immigrants as judges - when?
elchief 7y ago
If you served your time, you served your time. If not, shoulda got more time
- Florin_Andrei 7y ago
  > If you served your time, you served your time. Seriously, so much this. The thing should be stateless. You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. Eternal punishment only ought to have a place in dumb mythology.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Though I see that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things we trust other citizens with (gun ownership, voting, jury duty, working with children, commercial trucking/aviation, serving as a military officer, whatever...) I can imagine many cases where I'd be comfortable with someone being out of prison but not with owning a gun after let's say N years for an armed robbery conviction. In fact, I might not be comfortable with them legally owning a gun ever again. If we demand that the system be totally stateless and that we not release a prisoner until we're comfortable giving them all the possible rights, it seems sensible to argue the penalty for armed robbery should be life (which is, of course, ridiculous).
    - chx 7y ago
      Nah, it should come with thos specific things attached to their release but voting and jury duty ? Why not? There are any number white collar crimes where everything you listed wouldn't be a problem. Seriously, someone embezzles a few grand you don't want them to drive a truck??
    - ryeights 7y ago
      Isn't that what supervised release should be for? We monitor them in the general population for a short period (a few years) to determine if they're still dangerous. If not, restore their rights. I don't think anyone who goes to prison for 10 years and is observed on perfect behavior for another 3-4 is going to suddenly become dangerous again when their right to buy a gun is restored. These are pretty large timescales we're talking about.
mtnGoat 7y ago
As they should be! If someone pays their debt to society all their rights should be restored. (Gun rights being the acception, in certain cases, IMHO).
- Teknoman117 7y ago
  I mean I don't like the idea of people who committed a violent crime having legal access to firearms either, but if we truly believed our "justice" system reformed people, why would they need to have their rights restricted following their release? I mean I know our justice system is busted and you'd have to be insane to say it actually reformed people instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, but either way...
  - toredash 7y ago
    Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. Certain things are not a right to have, e.g. driving license or be working in a specific profession. Firearms in the US is special but the use of firearm in the US is a topic for itself.
    - serf 7y ago
      > Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. 'what about the children?' it's a tired argument that always has the same answer : some people would care, some wouldn't care, but the phrasing of your prompt provides a moral imperative to agree, no matter the question. you'll never get honesty that way, you'll only hear what you phrase the question to hear : in this case no one is going to dare say "Let's have the child abusers in school.".
      - Teknoman117 7y ago
        Just like how the MPAA/RIAA couldn't get SOPA or PIPA passed so they slapped some "protect children from sex explotation" language on it so it would be politically difficult to oppose.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vishnu_ks 7y ago
I recently listened to a podcast in which James Beshar interviews an anonymous San Francisco police officer who has been in the service for a long time. The police officer said that there are a lot of loopholes(not talking about paroles, probation or anything related) in California justice system in particular that allows felons to come out much faster than the actual time sentenced. For example felons that are sentenced for 30+ years in prison for committing serious crimes can come out in as fast as in 15 years by staying in certain prisons/jails that counts the time served as 2x or 3x. So lawyers game this so that the felons stay in these prisons/jails longer than other prisons and come out faster. I personally has not thought much about any of these issues and neither have a stand or expertise on what is right or wrong. I found what the police officer said (so did the host) very interesting and thought its worth sharing here. https://anchor.fm/belowtheline/episodes/37--Anonymous--San-Francisco-Police-Officer-e914q7 https://anchor.fm/belowtheline/episodes/37--Anonymous--San-F... Updated the comment for clarification.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  The article specifically stated the law would only apply to those felons no longer on parole or probation.
  - vishnu_ks 7y ago
    I am not taking about Parole or Probation. Time sentenced in certain jails or prisons would be counted as 2x or 3x more the time served. So cases are often delayed by the lawyers so that felons stay in these jails longer and can come out early. The podcast has more details. I am myself not well versed with the exact terminology. Updated my original comment for clarity
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  What you call "loopholes" are thankfully a standard part of most justice systems, by design. It's called parole, sometimes released on licence. First you have to get past the parole board who will assess your suitability for release. The theory is to grant you supervised access back to society to regain your place in society. While on parole there's all sorts of reason you can find yourself back inside. Half or two thirds of sentence is pretty common too. What America does different is not having post sentence - that's post release and parole - rehabilitation, you are always an ex-felon, even after 50 years law abiding. Other nations find offenders can often reform and regain a place in society, particularly if given a fair chance...
goodluckchuck 7y ago
There’s no such thing as a former felon. A felon is a person whose been convicted of a felony. Once convicted you’re a convict. Reformed felons... sure. But not former.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  If you really want to be pedantic, felons can petition to have their criminal records expunged, including most felonies, and therefore would be former felons.
  - goodluckchuck 7y ago
    This former felon talk encourages crime. It suggests that it’s okay to commit serious crimes, because you will be welcomed back to society and have a second chance. Why not give it a try? It’s dangerous and bad for society. It’s one thing to do it. To hire folks who’ve served their time, etc. Its another to talk as if there isn’t and shouldn’t be a stigma to crime.
RickJWagner 7y ago
I hope the jury selectors are sharp. Felons made poor decisions in the past. The opportunity for problematic behavior is present-- the poor decision making had better be confined to the past and not the present. Proceed with caution.
robsinatra 7y ago
They should require a former felon on every jury
pkaye 7y ago
Now if they would just compensate jurors atleast at minimum wage. The current rate barely pays for the daily public transportation costs.

142 points by jelliclesfarm 7y ago

c3534l 7y ago

I feel like former convicts will take their role very seriously. More seriously than other people might.

koheripbal 7y ago
That's naive

Bostonian 7y ago

The title is misleading -- someone convicted of a felony is still a felon after being released from prison. Juries create labelled data -- defendants are found guilty or not guilty -- but how do we know what characteristics of juries are likely to result in the most accurate verdicts, since we don't have a measure of whether defendants are truly guilty or innocent? Has anyone looked at what jury characteristics predict overturning of verdicts on appeal?

iudqnolq 7y ago
I think this is more about signalling to people who served their time in prison that we want to re-integrate them into society than it is about changing how court cases will be decided. And, even if that wasn't the case, everyone has a constitutional right to a jury of their peers - not a jury of everyone @Bostonion thinks is a good person. In our existing system, both sides get to rule out a set number of jurors for whatever reason they want (unless can be shown that the lawyers intended to discriminate on a few set characteristics), and then an unlimited amount of jurors if they can show the jurors might have any kind of bias, through a process called jury selection or voir dire. This is a giant industry, encompassing everything from body language experts to data analysis. For example, here's what TransUnion had to say about their new big data product: > With little time to research potential jurors using manual methods, attorneys and consultants traditionally pick juries based on what they can observe — age, gender, answers to background questions during voir dire and body language — leading to jury pools selected at least partially based on stereotypes and hunches. > Cutting-edge research tools like TLOxp® by TransUnion make it easy and affordable to quickly find more accurate, actionable information on potential jurors. TLOxp uses proprietary linking algorithms to scour 125 billion records on an estimated 95% of the U.S. population within seconds, uncovering insightful information and establishing patterns and relationships. https://www.tlo.com/blog/smarter-data-is-a-game-changer-for-selecting-juries https://www.tlo.com/blog/smarter-data-is-a-game-changer-for-... In other words, you aren't the first person to consider that people on juries might be biased, and in fact in my opinion we go far too far in the other direction. Furthermore, juries don't (generally) just get to decide whatever they want, they are instructed in what factors they are allowed to evaluate, and what tests they must use, by the judge. An appeal can (generally) only challenge the process, not the decision by the jurors. Here's what the article had to say about this: > The new law won’t interfere with this process. The attorneys or judge retain authority to dismiss a potential juror with a felony conviction from a particular case, for cause — but a felony conviction does not, in and of itself, constitute cause. In other words, either side could come up with a vague reason they didn't like a former felon and get them off the jury even if they had already used up their free strikes.
ajdlinux 7y ago
> The title is misleading -- someone convicted of a felony is still a felon after being released from prison. Perhaps it's time for the US to follow the lead of most of its common law brethren in the Commonwealth and get rid of the terms "misdemeanour" and "felony".
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Not like it means much to do that, you are subject to most of the same restrictions anyways in other english speaking countries, just under a different name than "felony".
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    The US is a bit special in how it restricts the rights of ex-felons though - it's the only major common law jurisdiction I can think of off the top of my head where some states restrict the voting rights of ex-prisoners.
- ta09876 7y ago
  What's wrong with having words for "small crime" and "big crime"?
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    I'm more concerned with having a word like "felon" to categorise _people_ into "small criminals" and "big criminals", rather than saying what it is they were actually convicted of. Other common law jurisdictions get by just fine by categorising small crimes as "summary" and larger ones as "indictable" for the purposes of criminal procedure (not that this categorisation maps all that well in the US where the right to jury trials is more entrenched). There isn't a comparable term to "felon", which is fine, because it's much better to talk about a "convicted murderer" or "convicted drug trafficker" or "convicted drink driver". And laws imposing restrictions on ex-prisoners generally apply to specific crimes, or to crimes carrying particular sentences with the threshold varying depending on the type of restriction. At that point, there just isn't much need for the word "felony".

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

I’m normally automatically skeptical of anything passed by our legislature here (which passes laws to ban plastic straws and water in restaurants but couldn’t care less about feces and mental illness all over the streets). For this, I’m totally 100% behind the decision. A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks. Even with the drawbacks it will never get better. We need to protect it and honor it, and that includes letting those who have felt the strong arm of the law decide whether the law itself is applied fairly to other people.

bitwize 7y ago
The thing about California is that the feces problem and the plastic ban are related. San Francisco has had a high ambient homeless population for some time, it's just that when it came time to go poop, they would go in a plastic bag and throw it in a dumpster. And then the city banned plastic bags...
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Paper bags are still available
  - bitwize 7y ago
    They're not viable for the following reasons: * Paper can't adequately and sanitarily hold poop * It's flimsy, recycled paper which is even worse * They cost $0.05 a bag, which is pretty steep for a population many of whom have literally no money Go to a dog park and see what people pick up their dogs' poop with -- paper or plastic?
shadowmore 7y ago
If it offsets the vast amounts of delusional people who have absolutely no concept of the real world and all its dangers, then I'm all for it. People who've been to prison are much more likely to be grounded in visceral reality and weigh things properly compared to much of our increasingly sheltered society, especially along the coasts.

mindslight 7y ago

No, it won't. If they just mean the state judiciary will summon felons to spend a day at the courthouse, sure. But prosecutors will surely be using their vetoes on such jurors due to their experience with the system, as they do with anyone that speaks a hint about jury nullification or otherwise seems hard to lead.

throwaway2048 7y ago
Prosecutors and defense council don't get an infinite amount of vetoes
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  One side will probably prioritize booting interesting people like felons though, so they still won't actually serve on the jury of criminal trials as often.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  There is a limit on peremptory challenges, for which no reason needs to be given. But I don't think there is a limit on for-cause dismissals.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    If dismissing people for felonies was a valid cause by itself, then this law would be completely meaningless, that wouldn't escape a judge overseeing the proceedings.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      I would guess that some felons might make it onto a jury with a felony that was (1) a long time ago, (2) completely unrelated to the felony alleged in the current trial, and (3) generally regarded to be a more minor crime. But I would guess that few felons will make it onto juries, and the ones that do will endure embarrassing questions during jury selections, in front of a room full of their peers, about their past crimes and whether or not they are now sufficiently honest citizens.

gnicholas 7y ago

I've served on a jury in CA and have seen jury selection on a couple occasions. Based on what I've seen, I think it will remain highly unlikely that a convicted felon will make their way onto a jury of a criminal trial (civil trials might be more likely). In the standard questionnaire that prospective jurors are given, they are asked if they or members of their immediate family have been victims of a crime, or if they work in law enforcement. Now that felons will be part of the jury pool, they will undoubtedly also ask if they have been convicted of a crime themselves. In my experience, judges will themselves excuse jurors who have family in law enforcement (parent, spouse, sibling), which means the lawyers don't have to bother using a challenge on it. I would expect the same will happen with many/most criminal convictions, especially when they are related to the crime that is alleged. And even when they are unrelated, I expect the prosecutor would dig in and ask questions like "have your feelings about respect for the law changed since you were convicted of embezzlement?" — even if it's an assault trial. These questions will be uncomfortable for the potential jurors, who may feel like they're being humiliated and put on trial all over again. I would not want to be a felon being questioned for jury selection by a prosecutor. note: my experience is in San Mateo county jury selection as a private citizen. I am also a former lawyer, and almost all of my lawyer friends have never made it past jury selection. I served once, only because I emphasized that I practiced tax law, which is very different from criminal law.

jedberg 7y ago
I think it's kind of random. Last time I was on jury selection, the defendant, a black man, was accused of robbing a bank at gunpoint. The woman being questioned for jury duty was asked about being a victim of crime. She said, "I've been a bank teller for over 20 years. I've been robbed at gunpoint three times, and every time it was a black man. Black men are always guilty". I was shocked she would say such a thing, but even more shocked to see her back the next day. She wasn't dismissed.
- tobyhinloopen 7y ago
  Was he guilty?

jimbob45 7y ago

Why is anyone ever barred from jury duty outside of severe disability? Voir dire seems to exist to mitigate any conceivable juror issues.

wahern 7y ago
Once upon a time jury duty was considered a privilege, a way for upstanding citizens to shape their community. Losing that privilege was a social punishment, and a way to ensure justice was aspirational--lenient and harsh according to how the community expected itself to behave and evolve. The Magna Carta, which secured the right to a jury trial, only concerned the rights of the landed gentry. The jury trial was about the landed class having the right to deliberate on the disputes of its own members. It was copied from the system used for matters pertaining to Church lands and clerical crimes; matters that were required to be settled by other clergy through a parallel court system administered by the Church, whose rights and powers were derived from papal authority. This notion isn't entirely antiquated today. Some scholars argue that one of the reasons the American criminal justice system has become so harsh on minorities is because juries are usually composed of members who live in separate communities from the accused. Their interests are in tamping down on crime, with little incentive to consider the disruption caused by wrenching away men and women from the labor pool and their families. According to this perspective, we should maybe return to a system where jury pools are called from much smaller geographical districts--literally the neighborhood where the crime occurred. When share cropping was still a thing in the South, before penal labor became a state enterprise, and even during slavery, juries were often quite lenient toward the working class, including blacks. (Conviction rates were much closer to parity between white and black defendants!) Jury members knew that the accused likely worked for someone else in the community, and owed debts to others; unnecessary punishment[1] of the accused indirectly punished jury members' friends and families. Things worked similarly at the turn of the 19th century in major cities, when ethnic communities were compact and courts weren't centralized downtown. Jail time meant leaving a wife and kids without needed income, creating an immediate burden on the community (e.g. more expenditures from the neighborhood church's coffers). If juries were again composed of members from the community directly impacted by a crime, then it might still make sense to penalize felons from serving. Juries would once again be more about the community policing itself, as opposed to today where we principally conceive of juries as impartial and fair (in the roulette sense) adjudicators of guilt and gatekeepers of retributive justice. Fortunately, most crime is still local. "Black-on-black" is a catchphrase today, but crime is generally neighbor-on-neighbor everywhere. [1] Of course, if you were black then "unnecessary" would need to take into account the need to sow fear in the black community. But so long as slavery and share cropping kept blacks tied to the plantations and farms, that was far less common than in later years when they became more mobile.

Proven 7y ago

That’s great, East Coast socialists aren’t ruining the state fast enough, so this will help. Illegal immigrants as judges - when?

elchief 7y ago

If you served your time, you served your time. If not, shoulda got more time

Florin_Andrei 7y ago
> If you served your time, you served your time. Seriously, so much this. The thing should be stateless. You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new. Eternal punishment only ought to have a place in dumb mythology.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  Though I see that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things we trust other citizens with (gun ownership, voting, jury duty, working with children, commercial trucking/aviation, serving as a military officer, whatever...) I can imagine many cases where I'd be comfortable with someone being out of prison but not with owning a gun after let's say N years for an armed robbery conviction. In fact, I might not be comfortable with them legally owning a gun ever again. If we demand that the system be totally stateless and that we not release a prisoner until we're comfortable giving them all the possible rights, it seems sensible to argue the penalty for armed robbery should be life (which is, of course, ridiculous).
  - chx 7y ago
    Nah, it should come with thos specific things attached to their release but voting and jury duty ? Why not? There are any number white collar crimes where everything you listed wouldn't be a problem. Seriously, someone embezzles a few grand you don't want them to drive a truck??
  - ryeights 7y ago
    Isn't that what supervised release should be for? We monitor them in the general population for a short period (a few years) to determine if they're still dangerous. If not, restore their rights. I don't think anyone who goes to prison for 10 years and is observed on perfect behavior for another 3-4 is going to suddenly become dangerous again when their right to buy a gun is restored. These are pretty large timescales we're talking about.

mtnGoat 7y ago

As they should be! If someone pays their debt to society all their rights should be restored. (Gun rights being the acception, in certain cases, IMHO).

Teknoman117 7y ago
I mean I don't like the idea of people who committed a violent crime having legal access to firearms either, but if we truly believed our "justice" system reformed people, why would they need to have their rights restricted following their release? I mean I know our justice system is busted and you'd have to be insane to say it actually reformed people instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else, but either way...
- toredash 7y ago
  Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. Certain things are not a right to have, e.g. driving license or be working in a specific profession. Firearms in the US is special but the use of firearm in the US is a topic for itself.
  - serf 7y ago
    > Would you say the same thing if a former convict of child abuse wanted to work closely with your kinds in school, sports or other arenas? I for sure would not be happy with it. 'what about the children?' it's a tired argument that always has the same answer : some people would care, some wouldn't care, but the phrasing of your prompt provides a moral imperative to agree, no matter the question. you'll never get honesty that way, you'll only hear what you phrase the question to hear : in this case no one is going to dare say "Let's have the child abusers in school.".
    - Teknoman117 7y ago
      Just like how the MPAA/RIAA couldn't get SOPA or PIPA passed so they slapped some "protect children from sex explotation" language on it so it would be politically difficult to oppose.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

vishnu_ks 7y ago

I recently listened to a podcast in which James Beshar interviews an anonymous San Francisco police officer who has been in the service for a long time. The police officer said that there are a lot of loopholes(not talking about paroles, probation or anything related) in California justice system in particular that allows felons to come out much faster than the actual time sentenced. For example felons that are sentenced for 30+ years in prison for committing serious crimes can come out in as fast as in 15 years by staying in certain prisons/jails that counts the time served as 2x or 3x. So lawyers game this so that the felons stay in these prisons/jails longer than other prisons and come out faster. I personally has not thought much about any of these issues and neither have a stand or expertise on what is right or wrong. I found what the police officer said (so did the host) very interesting and thought its worth sharing here. https://anchor.fm/belowtheline/episodes/37--Anonymous--San-Francisco-Police-Officer-e914q7 https://anchor.fm/belowtheline/episodes/37--Anonymous--San-F... Updated the comment for clarification.

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
The article specifically stated the law would only apply to those felons no longer on parole or probation.
- vishnu_ks 7y ago
  I am not taking about Parole or Probation. Time sentenced in certain jails or prisons would be counted as 2x or 3x more the time served. So cases are often delayed by the lawyers so that felons stay in these jails longer and can come out early. The podcast has more details. I am myself not well versed with the exact terminology. Updated my original comment for clarity
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
What you call "loopholes" are thankfully a standard part of most justice systems, by design. It's called parole, sometimes released on licence. First you have to get past the parole board who will assess your suitability for release. The theory is to grant you supervised access back to society to regain your place in society. While on parole there's all sorts of reason you can find yourself back inside. Half or two thirds of sentence is pretty common too. What America does different is not having post sentence - that's post release and parole - rehabilitation, you are always an ex-felon, even after 50 years law abiding. Other nations find offenders can often reform and regain a place in society, particularly if given a fair chance...

goodluckchuck 7y ago

There’s no such thing as a former felon. A felon is a person whose been convicted of a felony. Once convicted you’re a convict. Reformed felons... sure. But not former.

gamblor956 7y ago
If you really want to be pedantic, felons can petition to have their criminal records expunged, including most felonies, and therefore would be former felons.
- goodluckchuck 7y ago
  This former felon talk encourages crime. It suggests that it’s okay to commit serious crimes, because you will be welcomed back to society and have a second chance. Why not give it a try? It’s dangerous and bad for society. It’s one thing to do it. To hire folks who’ve served their time, etc. Its another to talk as if there isn’t and shouldn’t be a stigma to crime.

RickJWagner 7y ago

I hope the jury selectors are sharp. Felons made poor decisions in the past. The opportunity for problematic behavior is present-- the poor decision making had better be confined to the past and not the present. Proceed with caution.

robsinatra 7y ago

They should require a former felon on every jury

pkaye 7y ago

Now if they would just compensate jurors atleast at minimum wage. The current rate barely pays for the daily public transportation costs.