Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're fantasizing about me relying on gut feelings. No, I was referring to the fact that many criminals do not reform, even though they might want people to think they have reformed. expatCA's statistics on reoffending felons provide a prime example.
And no, you don't know the answers to your questions before you ask them. You just think you know what you're talking about when you don't.
.
Yes, Genghis, I pretty much do know the answers before I post questions I pose to others.
As per recidivism, and expat’s stats: I’ll just briefly touch on an otherwise very involved, complicated, convoluted topic. Think:
1. “Arrested” does not equal “convicted.” .... why is that an important distinction?
2. Among other reasons, it’s an important distinction because investigations into crimes nearly always focus heavily on documented ex-felons. They are at top of list for arrest. They get arrested a lot. Some of them rightly so. Some not.
3. Ex-felons have a damn hard time reintegrating when released. Can’t readily get employment or places to live in today’s information / internet access to records age. So, yes, sliding back into trouble out of desperation happens, often.
4. None of the above, when subjected to logical deliberation, means the ex-con will be biased as a juror in a trial ... for all the reasons mentioned by Binnall and Snowden as well as by the body of the justice department in the great state of Maine, and others. In fact, 23 states do allow ex-felons to serve on juries based on certain criteria having been met regarding their prior convictions (time out, off parole, nature of crime among them).
"James Binnall, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Cal State Long Beach, brings a unique crime-and-punishment perspective to class. The 39-year-old served more than 4½ years in Pennsylvania state prison for a 1999 drunk driving crash that killed his passenger and injured another driver."
I'll provide a quote from his webpage too:
"Dr. Binnall also maintains a pro-bono law practice, representing federal criminal defendants on appeal."
Dr Binnall is heavily devoted to promoting ex-felons, due to his personal history. So no, I'm not going to believe his studies just because he claims that that felons are better jurors. He is the poster child for the potentially biased researcher, and I will ignore his research results. You might laugh at this, but social science research has an awful record in terms of reproducibility and this case seems especially suspicious.
I am particularly enjoying you having written this. First, if you, or anyone, reads the link to the article you supplied about Binnall, as well as his “page”, you should be pretty impressed with his apparent honesty, qualifications, and integrity. Not a negative observation in there ... nor any indication of bias. Passionate commitment to an issue does not simply, automatically, signal bias. It is reasonable cause to explore for bias, but not proof in itself. If you look at his bibliographies and references in his various published studies in highly credible legal and academic venues, you should discern the guy’s commitment to disclosures and his scholarly abilities.
That you automatically dismiss his studies rather than review his work carefully and thoughtfully is a continuing portrait you paint of yourself as a close-minded, biased individual. If an openly gay anthropology professor submitted a research paper on homosexuality in primitive cultures, would you disavow it without further cause before considering its possible merits simply because the professor / researcher was gay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genghis
It's not about lying, it's about being heavily biased against the system if they think the system has wronged him. And surprise surprise, someone who just spent 8 years in federal prison might have a lot of resentment. In addition, many felons might think the laws they broke are wrong to begin with, and might be tempted to acquit others based on that mentality.
No, I wasn't sure one way or another. I was just wondering if you were like Binnall and were heavily biased due to a personal criminal history. I didn't mean to imply you "must" be an ex-felon.
Now here you continue your own bias. You are declaring Binnall “biased against the system” without a shred of proof that is so. Your entire basis for your declaration is that he is an ex-felon. Yet there are examples of nearly half of all state justice systems and studies that say ex-felons can make excellent, even sometimes superior, jurors.
Yes, Genghis, I pretty much do know the answers before I post questions I pose to others.
3. Ex-felons have a damn hard time reintegrating when released. Can’t readily get employment or places to live in today’s information / internet access to records age. So, yes, sliding back into trouble out of desperation happens, often.
4. None of the above, when subjected to logical deliberation, means the ex-con will be biased as a juror in a trial ... for all the reasons mentioned by Binnall and Snowden as well as by the body of the justice department in the great state of Maine, and others. In fact, 23 states do allow ex-felons to serve on juries based on certain criteria having been met regarding their prior convictions (time out, off parole, nature of crime among them).
I agree ex-felons need to be given certain breaks to help them reintegrate into society. I'm in favor of letting them vote, and I think the laws should be changed help them to get jobs, within reason. But serving on a jury doesn't really help them integrate into society and there's no reason to take the added risk, despite what the likes of Binnall think.
Quote:
I am particularly enjoying you having written this. First, if you, or anyone, reads the link to the article you supplied about Binnall, as well as his “page”, you should be pretty impressed with his apparent honesty, qualifications, and integrity. Not a negative observation in there ... nor any indication of bias. Passionate commitment to an issue does not simply, automatically, signal bias. It is reasonable cause to explore for bias, but not proof in itself. If you look at his bibliographies and references in his various published studies in highly credible legal and academic venues, you should discern the guy’s commitment to disclosures and his scholarly abilities.
That you automatically dismiss his studies rather than review his work carefully and thoughtfully is a continuing portrait you paint of yourself as a close-minded, biased individual. If an openly gay anthropology professor submitted a research paper on homosexuality in primitive cultures, would you disavow it without further cause before considering its possible merits simply because the professor / researcher was gay?
If an openly gay professor's research was devoted to putting gay people in a positive light, and he published a paper purporting to prove gay couples made better parents than straight couples, I'd probably ignore it. In general I prefer to ignore any researcher whose research alleges to show his/her own kind are superior in some way, including in situations where stereotypes say the opposite. That is what Binnall does with his jury research. He claims his own kind (convicted felons) make better jurors than the general public.
Quote:
Now here you continue your own bias. You are declaring Binnall “biased against the system” without a shred of proof that is so. Your entire basis for your declaration is that he is an ex-felon. Yet there are examples of nearly half of all state justice systems and studies that say ex-felons can make excellent, even sometimes superior, jurors.
It's not my job to prove he's biased. I'm not even sure how I could do so without wasting hours poring over his research. But I have the right to not trust him, and think his biases probably cloud his judgement. This is not the same as "following my gut". This means I am not trusting his research, but I welcome independent research by someone whose life isn't devoted to promoting people like himself.
Ummm. Once again: that concern is what voir dire is for.
Biggest problem with voir dire is that attorneys are not allowed an unlimited number of dismissals. Happened on the last jury upon which I served in Palmdale, (and as the foreman too, uugh.). Late in the jury selection process, the judge told one of the attorneys that "You only have one more voir dire." We ended up with a hung jury on one of the counts, vote was 11-1. After three days, the Judge declared a mistrial and discharged us. Case went to a re-trial a few months later.
I'm just trying to figure out what being a Vietnam veteran has to do with anything. You know there were cooks, and mechanics, and **** birds in Vietnam, right?
Now isn’t a thoughtful insight. Those artillery and mortar shells fired indiscriminately into a base camp did not discriminate between between infantry troops, cooks, mechanics and ****birds.
I agree ex-felons need to be given certain breaks to help them reintegrate into society. I'm in favor of letting them vote, and I think the laws should be changed help them to get jobs, within reason. But serving on a jury doesn't really help them integrate into society and there's no reason to take the added risk, despite what the likes of Binnall think.
Interesting you support certain reintegrative rights and programs, yet have expressed a bias that says ex-felons are overwhelmingly untrustworthy in judging others. And interesting that you support restoration of voting rights, which voting can exert the bias you perceive they have against “the system” on public policy ... yet you are flatly unwilling to consider the point of view expressed by quoted ex-felons that eligibility for jury duty conveyed to them a positive sense of reintegration with society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genghis
If an openly gay professor's research was devoted to putting gay people in a positive light, and he published a paper purporting to prove gay couples made better parents than straight couples, I'd probably ignore it. In general I prefer to ignore any researcher whose research alleges to show his/her own kind are superior in some way, including in situations where stereotypes say the opposite. That is what Binnall does with his jury research.He claims his own kind (convicted felons) make better jurors than the general public.
You added a metric. . I didn’t read Binnall as “devoting his research to ... proving his own kind ... were superior ... or made better jurors than the general public”. His research addresses the question of whether ex-felons cast biased votes in trial decisions. In evaluating the studies’ findings, others commented that the felons appeared to have contributed more to the deliberative process in some cases, and thus acting in ways sometimes exceeding the value of general public jurors ... but that was never a premise or theory of the studies. The studies’ results simply reported that the felons voted on average similarly to non-felons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genghis
It's not my job to prove he's biased. I'm not even sure how I could do so without wasting hours poring over his research. But I have the right to not trust him, and think his biases probably cloud his judgement. This is not the same as "following my gut". This means I am not trusting his research, but I welcome independent research by someone whose life isn't devoted to promoting people like himself.
So, you are willing to make declarative statements of bias based on pure opinion. Yeah. That’s what I’ve been pointing out about your, and others’, posts here.
Interesting you support certain reintegrative rights and programs, yet have expressed a bias that says ex-felons are overwhelmingly untrustworthy in judging others. And interesting that you support restoration of voting rights, which voting can exert the bias you perceive they have against “the system” on public policy ... yet you are flatly unwilling to consider the point of view expressed by quoted ex-felons that eligibility for jury duty conveyed to them a positive sense of reintegration with society.
I'm not flatly unwilling to consider his point of view. I just would prefer independent research done by people who don't have a clear personal stake in the matter. As for voting, I view it as less of a risk. I don't see felons as voting for the "pro-crime" candidates. Like everyone else, they'd vote according to self-interest and their personal values, and so on. Since either the Democratic or Republican candidate will normally win, there's no chance of anything too horrible happening even if felons do tip the balance. But if a serious criminal walks on a 11-1 decision, that's more of an issue. Another example would be gun ownership. I don't think ex-felons should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons, no matter how perfect their lives have been in recent years. They don't really need the weapons and the risk is too great.
Quote:
So, you are willing to make declarative statements of bias based on pure opinion. Yeah. That’s what I’ve been pointing out about your, and others’, posts here.
I didn't make any declarative statements, I just am ignoring his research. I welcome more legitimate research on this subject and might be persuadable. I can't learn the research in every subject that comes up, and at times I'll have to vote or otherwise make decisions on the issues. So sometimes I have no choice but to form opinions without convincing research to back it up. I fully admit sometimes these opinions are wrong and they are subject to change. I'm not that unsympathetic to ex-felons... I recognize you can end out in jail for years for one bad choice, which is sometimes a choice others make but simply never get caught (i.e. drug charges). Then it becomes extremely difficult to reintegrate into society because who wants to hire or rent out an apartment to an ex-felon? They're not like the chronic homeless people in the other threads who've had their whole lives to avoid their situation but failed, often due to substance abuse issues. I have a lot less sympathy for them.
I didn't make any declarative statements, I just am ignoring his research. I welcome more legitimate research on this subject and might be persuadable. I can't learn the research in every subject that comes up, and at times I'll have to vote or otherwise make decisions on the issues. So sometimes I have no choice but to form opinions without convincing research to back it up. I fully admit sometimes these opinions are wrong and they are subject to change. I'm not that unsympathetic to ex-felons... I recognize you can end out in jail for years for one bad choice, which is sometimes a choice others make but simply never get caught (i.e. drug charges). Then it becomes extremely difficult to reintegrate into society because who wants to hire or rent out an apartment to an ex-felon? They're not like the chronic homeless people in the other threads who've had their whole lives to avoid their situation but failed, often due to substance abuse issues. I have a lot less sympathy for them.
I know one company in NC that only hires ex felons and they are very good workers for them and paid normal wages, etc, just helped get back into society.
Does anyone, Tulemutt in particular, really think there isn't an implicit quid pro quo here? If it's well known Newsom got them votes, don't you think some percentage will feel better about the DNC, than however they felt before that move to reinstate the vote? Really? You don't see that? OK, well then you are simply being obstinate.
Same thing with illegal immigration being given healthcare in CA. Brings the Latino vote all the closer to the DNC, all for the tidy sum of a cool billion or two.
Next Newsom, while taking away my friends (can't take mine away anymore, I moved to the USA) gun rights in California, on a monthly basis, will now let felons possess firearms. You watch and see! It's the perverse logic of the DNC. ANYTHING FOR A VOTE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I didn’t read Binnall as “devoting his research to ... proving his own kind ... were superior ... or made better jurors than the general public”. His research addresses the question of whether ex-felons cast biased votes in trial decisions. In evaluating the studies’ findings, others commented that the felons appeared to have contributed more to the deliberative process in some cases, and thus acting in ways sometimes exceeding the value of general public jurors ... but that was never a premise or theory of the studies. The studies’ results simply reported that the felons voted on average similarly to non-felons.
