Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

calmatters.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

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

#61

Post by colejohnson66 »

RaceWon wrote: post #60
colejohnson66 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No I wouldn’t, but some would. I should’ve mentioned that where they’re allowed to work should be dependent on what their crime was. A robber can’t work at a bank, etc.

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

#63

Post by rootsudo »

pell wrote: post #46
jedberg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The jury system seems completely corrupt to me. I am glad we do not use this method in criminal trials here in Germany where I live.

Corrupt? It's a jury of your peers, how is it corrupt? It's random people that decide your fate.

In German it's judges. So a judge tries you and says you're guilty or innocent?

You have to forego your right of trial by Jury in the USA for that to be the case.

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

#64

Post by EliRivers »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #3

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 incl…

A jury of our peers is as good as it gets, folks.

Is it? How about professional jurors. Would that be an improvement? Or a mix of the two; some peers, some professionals. Or what about short-engagement professional jurors - selected from the citizenry at large, but then given some proper training and acting as jurors for a year. Or perhaps a cadre of professionally trained jurors who take a few months to become trained, and then simply do jury duty alongside their untrained colleagues. Is a simple jury of peers really the best we can do?

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

#65

Post by lucb1e »

mtnGoat wrote: 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).

But then, guns seem to be disproportionately dangerous to the owner as well as the general public and shouldn't be a right in the first place, so that kinda makes sense.

In general, rights should be restored, yes. There should only be exceptions if there is reason, which the judge judges. The judge may rule that an attempted suicide bomber doesn't get to work with bombs in mining operations, or someone who repeatedly caused fatal accidents not get a new driver's license (though I guess that might be an issue in the USA, I hear it's necessary for normal life there, but it's about the example), or someone who committed voting fraud doesn't get to run a place where people vote during elections, etc., but otherwise I don't see how it shouldn't be equal for everyone.

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

#66

Post by jeltz »

pastage wrote: post #48
wahern wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abou…

There is also the concept of lay judges, people who are non educated in law but are paid a small sum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge

Sweden uses lay judges a lot in the lower layers of court. It is not a perfect system and we have had a couple of scandals where lay judges have pushed personal agendas in court. But I still think I prefer our system to jury trials.

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

#67

Post by kevingadd »

rootsudo wrote: post #63
pell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jury system seems completely corrupt to me. I am glad we do not use this method in criminal trials here in Germany where I live.

Corrupt? It's a jury of your peers, how is it corrupt? It's random people that decide your fate. In German it's judges. So a judge tries you and says you're guilty or innocent? You have to forego your right of trial by Jury in the USA for that to be the case.

The corruption is that the lawyers are allowed to take advantage of the jury dismissal system to stack the jury, and in many locations they will do so.

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

#68

Post by serf »

toredash wrote: post #49
Teknoman117 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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.".

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

#69

Post by kevingadd »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #56
elchief wrote: 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?

We already solve this problem with sex offender registries. There's no reason to call all felons pedophiles just to execute your agenda.
Post reply on HN