California moves to let felons serve on juries (attorneys, house)

[veritased]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes we know from talking with LEO's that AB109 has been responsible for up-ticks in crime in the Bay area. One of the many reasons we got the heck out. But the progressives need every increasing votes, and in addition to illegal immigrants getting better healthcare than you, the taxpayer, now the DNC will get votes from the newly released felons.

The bottom line of the DNC is to keep bribing as many demographics as possible for their votes. We give you money, tuition, healthcare, drivers licenses, votes, whatever you want, you just gotta vote for us and you'll get to keep all this stuff.

Not imaginative, but effective.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

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

Some won't and some will but if he figured out that drugs are bad, then no, he won't and it's great. It's also great that he's using his experience to counsel others. Hopefully, some will take his words to heart but as stupid as humans are, some will continue to think "it won't happen to me. I'm too smart to get caught again ..." until they aren't.

Originally Posted by wheelsup

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.

Sort of like what we have now in Caifornia. Interestingly, on the news a few weeks back, a story about this very thing. Apparently, there's been a rash of shoplifting in (I think it was) Fairfield or Vacaville (sorry, can't recall the exact city) where this group of thieves rush a store, grabbing anything and everything they can and then running.

Police say the rise in these types of crimes are a result of Prop 47's reduced penalties. I don't know if that's true or not but then I don't hang with thieves so I don't know their motive except that it seems they've now figured a way to make "needed cash" (pawning or selling stolen goods online) while avoiding prosecution.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

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.

Or we could just eliminate the risk entirely and not allow them to be jurors, as it is now. I don't recall there being a shortage of jurors.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by veritased

Yes we know from talking with LEO's that AB109 has been responsible for up-ticks in crime in the Bay area. One of the many reasons we got the heck out. But the progressives need every increasing votes, and in addition to illegal immigrants getting better healthcare than you, the taxpayer, now the DNC will get votes from the newly released felons.

The bottom line of the DNC is to keep bribing as many demographics as possible for their votes. We give you money, tuition, healthcare, drivers licenses, votes, whatever you want, you just gotta vote for us and you'll get to keep all this stuff.

Not imaginative, but effective.

Speaking of “not imaginative” ... your postings fit the description to a “T”.

“It’s the progressives”
“It’s the Dem’s”
“It’s the DNC”
“It’s the socialists’”

... rinse and repeat ...

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by max210

Or we could just eliminate the risk entirely and not allow them to be jurors, as it is now. I don't recall there being a shortage of jurors.

What risk? Voir dire is the mechanism law provides to determine bias risk in any potential juror. What makes you think that bias is found less in the general population? People are eliminated from jury selection every case that goes to court ... because ... the attorneys interpret potential bias.

As long as I’m sharing stories today ...

Another close friend (and also close mutual friend of aforementioned veteran friend who was father of the convict I described), now 75, who is a two-tour Vietnam veteran, 6-years Army Ranger, two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star, married, raised a nice son, career lead machinist in a big company making parts for aircraft equipment millions of people rely on for safe flights, high-earner, neatly kept home-owner, raises and lowers Old Glory and the MIA flags on a pole every morning and evening at his property still to this day ... did a bit over 3 year stint in the joint for armed robbery a couple years after he came back from Vietnam. Discharged out of the Army hospital with metal in his back and skull, he developed a drug habit. And he readily admits he took a wrong turn there for a bit feeding it.

You are telling me that this guy isn’t safe to have on a jury simply because he did some stupid time when he was young?

There are a lot of seriously, forever, bad guys in prison ... and a lot who never made it to prison still running free around us all everyday. And there’s a hell of a lot of ex-felons who I’d trust my life with, as well. All kinds ... in and out and never been there.

That’s what voir dire is for. Look at some of the politicians (both parties) we see and listen to all the time. How many of them do you think are free of bias? How about Catholic priests and store front ministers? Ever read about any of them being secretly nasty people? How can you say they’d be more fit to sit on a jury in a sex abuse trial just by whether they’ve done a stretch or not?

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by 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.

Any fool can introduce a bill. It doesn’t make it a law.

Any fool can sue in court. It doesn’t mean that person will win.

[Genghis]

Giving felons the right to serve on a jury is quite different from giving them the right to a vote. Voting is something people do to get their preferred policies in place. Being on a jury is a burden which people do out of civic responsibility. While some felons are reformed, others are not, and all you need is one criminal on a jury to let a guilty party go free. People don't really lose anything by not being eligible to serve on a jury and I see no reason to just let all felons be allowed to serve on juries simply because some of them have reformed.

[veritased]

Tulemutt, your story is heartwarming. Thanks to your friend for his service.

I would agree that there should be some classes of felonies that for which you could get your rights restored.
But any felony conviction with act of violence in it, and you don't get to come out, and you don't get to own firearms, and you don't get to vote, you are just a piece of crap. Or fraud of any kind.

And I am pretty sure a skilled con person could easily fool most attys in their voir dire. The more likely to be an evil psycho, the more likely they will be convincing.

That being said, the last jury I was voir dire'd for, I was discharged immediately. I think I came off too anti-crime.

[V8 Vega]

Democrats are in total control and they continually come up with stuff like this to insure that they always stay in control. There is no hope for California.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Genghis

Giving felons the right to serve on a jury is quite different from giving them the right to a vote. Voting is something people do to get their preferred policies in place. Being on a jury is a burden which people do out of civic responsibility. While some felons are reformed, others are not, and all you need is one criminal on a jury to let a guilty party go free. People don't really lose anything by not being eligible to serve on a jury and I see no reason to just let all felons be allowed to serve on juries simply because some of them have reformed.

Ummm. Once again: that concern is what voir dire is for.

voir dire
(vwahr [with a near-silent "r"] deer) n. from French "to see to speak," the questioning of prospective jurors by a judge and attorneys in court. Voir dire is used to determine if any juror is biased and/or cannot deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror to serve (knowledge of the facts; acquaintanceship with parties, witnesses or attorneys; occupation which might lead to bias; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experiences such as having been sued in a similar case). Actually one of the unspoken purposes of the voir dire is for the attorneys to get a feel for the personalities and likely views of the people on the jury panel. In some courts the judge asks most of the questions, while in others the lawyers are given substantial latitude and time to ask questions. Some jurors may be dismissed for cause by the judge, and the attorneys may excuse others in "peremptory" challenges without stating any reason. 2) questions asked to determine the competence of an alleged expert witness. 3) any hearing outside the presence of the jury held during trial.