California moves to let felons serve on juries (Sacramento, Berkeley: crime, felony)

[ysr_racer]

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/06/1...4teSAETTu_6YMY

The state of California has made no secret that it wants to let as many people out of prison as possible.

From the early release of inmates through AB 109, to filling parole boards with felon friendly commissioners, to decriminalizing a litany of felonies and drug offenses with Props 47 and 57, Sacramento lawmakers are bending over backwards to dramatically reduce the state’s inmate population...

Senate Bill 310, authored by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, and would allow Californians who have prior felony convictions to serve on juries.

[ysr_racer]

What could possibly go wrong with this?

[Tulemutt]

What could go wrong with this theoretically is having a felon’s sympathies affect a verdict.

But that is a danger that exists in any juror. The mechanism to preempt that danger is called voir dire. You are familiar with this no doubt, ysr? Right?

[JGC97]

Why do we even bother locking up people anymore? Serving on juries, possession (and very likely consumption) of marijuana, conjugal visits? Doesn't sound much different than a regular citizen. Let 'em out and save the state money of incarceration.

[Tulemutt]

The likelihood of a felon serving on a jury is exceedingly low. The likelihood of them openly possessing pot, let alone consuming it is maybe even lower. These things are clarifications of law, not policies for enablement.

Conjugal visits have a very different and productive function (pun intended) for prisoners and spouses alike. The visits contribute to beneficial bonding and resulting positive outcomes for prisoners who will be released. Part of the philosophy behind imprisonment, after all, is rehabilitation ... not just punishment.

The son of a very close Vietnam veteran friend of mine (friend now passed away) is due out of prison soon after over 20 years of incarceration for killing a drug dealer during a buy. Great kid ... terrific student ... excellent manners ... highly talented athlete ... with a gun ... and a growing affection for drugs. When he committed the crime (age 19) he was just married with a baby. He has been a model prisoner who has gone out with authorities to counsel and give speeches to other youth at risk. He and first wife acknowledged his situation and divorced when he went to prison. He has maintained an amazing relationship with his daughter from jail. She visits, along with his mother, nearly every week all these years. They even used to do her homework together in the prison facilities.

A few years ago this young man married, in prison, an old flame who has been a constant pen-pal over the years. Her first marriage also failed. They were granted conjugal visitations ... and he now has a new daughter he can help with homework ... this time at home by the time she is old enough to start school.

Story over. Do you think he’ll likely be buying drugs and carrying a pistol again?

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What could go wrong with this theoretically is having a felon’s sympathies affect a verdict.

But that is a danger that exists in any juror. The mechanism to preempt that danger is called voir dire. You are familiar with this no doubt, ysr? Right?

We should automatically dismiss potential jurors with prior felonies. Hence, why even have this law. Right?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

We should automatically dismiss potential jurors with prior felonies. Hence, why even have this law. Right?

The OP link is an opinion piece. Expressing opinions openly is legal and part of life in America. So far so good.

Now then, as the writer notes: ex-felons who have served their time are later entitled to vote again. They’ve paid their debt as per obligations levied by the courts.

The writer then goes on to opine about the dangers of potential bias - failing to note voir dire process is to detect and thwart exactly that.

The writer notes that family members of law enforcement are “routinely excused” from jury duty for the same concern over bias.

OK. Those family members aren’t excluded by law ... they are “routinely excused” ... how? Voir dire.

Meanwhile, there are a bazillion cases in courts needing jurors in which nothing about the nature of the case might invite bias from an ex-felon or the wife of a cop. If the attorneys performing voir dire do their job, they’ll note the difference.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What could go wrong with this theoretically is having a felon’s sympathies affect a verdict.

But that is a danger that exists in any juror. The mechanism to preempt that danger is called voir dire. You are familiar with this no doubt, ysr? Right?

Well that's the problem -- this isn't France and we don't need no French telling us what to do with their French laws. What's next...are we gonna start guillotining people too?

[wheelsup]

Jurors with law enforcement connections (family etc) are often excused due to perceived bias, how in the world this is a good idea I have no idea. I love CA as a state, the people (very nice and chill!) but the politics and tax policies are toxic overall.

However this attitude towards crime is not limited to CA, the Dallas TX attorney general announced those who shoplift under $750 "for economic need" will not be prosecuted.

[Masterful_Man]

It must be terrifying for rational, intelligent people who currently live in California.
How can you sleep at night knowing that complete morons are running your state?