California is about to allow former felons to serve on juries

Post by gamblor956 » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

user5994461 wrote: post #131

crazygringo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, whether they've ever served time or not is irrelevant in this case. It's a false equivalence, because they're not suitable for the role in the first place. A better question is, would I let a pedophile who served their time work at McDonald's? And the answer is, of course. They need a job just like everyone else.

I bet MacDonald's would disagree. Pretty sure they consider themselves targeted toward teenagers and kids. Last I went there, it was filled with teenagers, typical middle school and high school from the area. Further away from the city center, the bigger macdonalds have playing area and attractions for children, to cater to young families with kids.

Post by gamblor956 » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #88

kevingadd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically makes "professional jurors" better, though? I won't say the idea isn't appealing, but what about making them professionals makes them better than our peers? There are already a bunch of heavily regulated professionals involved in the process so it's kind of arbitrary to claim that we need to regulate more of it. Why not limit witness testimony to professionals too?

In the jury I sat on, we had a question about the the law and it's wording. The response we got was, "you have already received your instructions." Gee, thanks. Someone more well versed might have better understood the definition.

Post by toredash » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #68

toredash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hon…

Post by jedberg » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

tobyhinloopen wrote: post #28

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,…

Was he guilty?

Post by goodluckchuck » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #152

goodluckchuck wrote: post #105

There’s no such thing as a former felon. A felon is a person whose been convicted of a felony. Once convicted you’re a convict. Reformed felons... sure. But not former.

If you really want to be pedantic, felons can petition to have their criminal records expunged, including most felonies, and therefore would be former felons.