Live data from Hacker News

California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

calmatters.org

51–60 of 169 posts

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#51
post #42

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).

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 ab…

> instead of just locking them away because we don't give a shit about doing anything else,

Why society locks people away is not just about trying to change them (that's a case by case assessment whether it can be done or not) but to simply protect normal citizens from them - and in most cases "aging someone in prison" is good enough to make them less of a criminal (at least for violent crimes).

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#52
post #39

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

> 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.

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that point, I think there's a counterpoint which is, "We can choose to release felons at the earliest moment when they no longer represent a serious threat to a peaceable society" but that by releasing them at that earlier moment, we give them many freedoms but don't trust them with certain things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).

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#53
post #39

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

> 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.

We learn from our mistakes.

If the consequences are too great, it makes people not want to make mistakes, therefore getting stuck.

If consequences are too small, people do not learn to think about "what could go wrong", and do stupid things over and over again.

In this day and age where everything gets recorded and shared, I tend to be more cautious.

However the smaller amount of mistakes gets shared to more people to learn from, therefore maybe we are learning faster this way?

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#54
post #39

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

> 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.

> You made a mistake, there were consequences - but once that's over, you ought to be good as new.

The consequences for being found guilty of a crime are more nuanced than this suggests, although not so much in the US which is very focused on vengeance.

Let's take an example a sentencing example I sat in on:

The man had forged paperwork purportedly showing he'd paid a bunch of money for supplies, because he had already written a fraudulent claim for a large tax refund for his business, and the tax office wrote back asking for evidence of this expenditure. That was his last chance to say "Oops, that was er... a mistake" and maybe get a fine, once he decided "I'll just forge the paperwork" he was doomed to go to prison.

Item 1 on the court's agenda was to tell Companies House that the guilty man must not direct any companies. Never (unless a successful application is made to reverse this, which is unlikely) can this man serve as director or secretary of any type of company again. In his family business this means a son will now run the company - why? Because the freedom to direct a company is not essential and we evidently can't trust this guy to do so because he purposefully lied to the tax authorities. He doesn't need to "earn" that back, let somebody trustworthy do it instead.

The guy also got some months of prison time, after the court had reassured itself that this would not leave any dependants destitute -- no point sending one guy to prison only to have his kids turn to crime to get food right? But the fervent hope of the court is that this results in him being _reformed_ and no longer breaking the law.

We can also disqualify people who commit electoral fraud from participating in elections. Oh two government employees conspired to stuff a ballot for a $500 pay off? They're not just going to prison for a little while, they will also have a lifetime ban on standing as candidate in any election and from participating in any way, including as an ordinary voter. No more democracy for you motherfucker.

As to "eternal" punishment, in countries that don't have the Death Penalty (all of Europe for example) what else should we do with unrepentant murderers? Anders Breivik for example still expresses the belief that murdering a bunch of young volunteers was the right thing to do. We obviously can't be like "OK Anders, you've served your time, don't kill anybody else" because that's exactly what he'll do. So he will most likely spend the rest of his life in a cell - periodically psychologists will assess him, say nope he's still dangerous, and he'll stay behind bars.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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/a…

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??

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#57
post #39

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

Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?

False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food restaurant since they’ve served their debt to society.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#58
post #39

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

If you did the deed, people should be able to know and make their own decisions. It's part of your history. Serving some time in a facility is beside the point.

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#59
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the wrong question -- if a juror is that certain, pre-trial, that a defendant is guilty, there is no way that the defendant can get a fair trial.

> if a juror is that certain, pre-trial, that a defendant is guilty, there is no way that the defendant can get a fair trial Sure they can, one nutjob juror cannot convict. I've also been seated on juries where some of my fellow jurors were quite obviously biased against the defendant, and this really hurt their credibility with me. I wasn't the only one either, other jurors challenged some of the statements they mad…

What was the verdict?

Re: California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you let a pedophile who served his time babysit your children?

False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food restaurant since they’ve served their debt to society.

> False equivalence. No, but I’d let someone convicted of a robbery 20 years ago and nothing since serve me at a fast food

This appears as a perfect false equivalence imo. Would you also let someone who was convicted of poisoning people serve you fast food?

Here's some [0] stats about repeat offeders

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism

Post reply on HN