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

141–150 of 169 posts

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

#141

Post by inferiorhuman »

wongarsu wrote: post #82
inferiorhuman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, judges will themselves excuse jurors who have family in law enforcement (parent, spouse, sibling), which means the lawyers don't have to bother using a challenge on it. I would expect the same will happen with many/most criminal convictions, especially when they are related to the crime that is alleged. That's not been my experience, and I've sat through the process in San Francisco 3-4 times so far…

At least you are judged by a jury of your peers. Of course by "your peers" we mean we exclude people with the same profession as you, and we don't really mean people of the same social class. It might be people from your general area, unless the trial happens somewhere else where the laws favor the accusing party. But at least we can guarantee that your peers are humans. That ought to be enough. Best system.

At least you are judged by a jury of your peers.

You're not though. The one trial I was one was a murder case and the two defendants didn't speak a lick of English. All of the Spanish speakers were weeded out because English is the law of the land and you are not allowed your own interpretations. Do you really think that is a jury of their peers? I owned up to speaking a few words of Spanish and vowed to use the official legal translations only, and out of desperation I wasn't excused.

When the police interrogated one of them we weren't allowed to translate the police interpretation both because we weren't official translators and because the policeman's words were not evidence. The official translation didn't match what I think the cop said. I followed the letter of the law. I asked the judge if we could consider the video of the interrogation and the judge answered in the negative. Eventually we convicted a man of second degree murder. The judge even sent out thank you letters. It's definitely up there as one of the most revolting things I've done with my life.

That ought to be enough.

It's not. Even if you ignore the baked in corruption it's an awful system designed by people enamored with a bullshit concept of legal precision.

There are plenty of things that could be done to improve it, but aren't. So here we are. Allowing felons to sit on a jury probably makes someone feel good but does little, if anything, to address the problems with our legal system.

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

#142

Post by IAmEveryone »

lacker wrote: post #93
wongarsu wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like being judged by a professional with experience. Judges are great. And if one judge or panel of judges is bad you will notice everything they do will be overturned in appeals. The problem is selecting good judges. In Germany this seems to work great, but what I see in recent times in the US terrifies me. Voting for judges leads to populists winning, appointing them leads to very questionable people being appoin…

Part of trial by jury is to prevent the government from pushing immoral, dictatorial laws on its citizens. I wouldn’t say that Germany has a great track record of avoiding that.

Even after the abolition of juries in 192x, Germany had a system not too different from it: A panel of three professional and six laypeople judges. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emminger_Reform

The difference is that these lay judges work alongside the regular judges. They can, for example, ask questions and decide on questions of law as well as fact. They also serve for something like two years and get a few weeks of preparatory classes.

With a 6:3 ratio "the people" had the power to overrule the professionals. Today, the ratio is one of 2:1, 2:2, or 2:3, depending on the crime.

Of course the worst court of all did (pretend) to include "a jury of your peers" (read: Nazis), although they were unimportant enough to not even warrant a mention in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Court_(Germany). (Note the name, though).

That last link is really worth reading, I believe. It'll make you appreciate the rule of law as we (some of us) enjoy today.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

Operyl wrote: post #94
kevingadd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One nutjob juror cannot convict, but one person can prevent a unanimous verdict by refusing to cooperate or objectively evaluate testimony and follow the rules. The result of that in many cases is a hung jury and then a mistrial. Combine this with the concept of jury nullification (something law enforcement DESPISES) and there are lots of situations where it would make sense for a juror to refuse to align with the re…

Fuck ... I hated that so much. I loved the actual courtroom experience, I learned so much about how our legal system worked and both sides’ lawyers did an excellent job in explaining the case from their view points. By the end, it was pretty clear to the majority of us which party had the better case .... except for one old lady who wanted to “stick it to the man” and hated both parties. 4 ish days of deliberation tr…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by iudqnolq »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #21
gnicholas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a limit on peremptory challenges, for which no reason needs to be given. But I don't think there is a limit on for-cause dismissals.

If dismissing people for felonies was a valid cause by itself, then this law would be completely meaningless, that wouldn't escape a judge overseeing the proceedings.

Right now having a felon relative is a valid cause. And maybe this law being completely meaningless is the point? A judge doesn't (generally) get to decide a law is a dumb lie so it should be interpreted to be stronger than it really is.

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

#145

Post by Chris_Chambers »

akimball wrote: post #123
fenomas wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume good faith please.

Said every abuser and con artist ever. Yours is often a good reaction, which corrects for pervasive and insidious distorting cynical biases, but you should also be alert to it's hazards.

Good point. Let’s all downvote you because this is reddit now.

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

#146

Post by bitwize »

rolltiide wrote: post #38
bitwize wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about California is that the feces problem and the plastic ban are related. San Francisco has had a high ambient homeless population for some time, it's just that when it came time to go poop, they would go in a plastic bag and throw it in a dumpster. And then the city banned plastic bags...

Paper bags are still available

They're not viable for the following reasons:

* Paper can't adequately and sanitarily hold poop

* It's flimsy, recycled paper which is even worse

* They cost $0.05 a bag, which is pretty steep for a population many of whom have literally no money

Go to a dog park and see what people pick up their dogs' poop with -- paper or plastic?

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

#147

Post by Teknoman117 »

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…

Just like how the MPAA/RIAA couldn't get SOPA or PIPA passed so they slapped some "protect children from sex explotation" language on it so it would be politically difficult to oppose.

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

#148

Post by gamblor956 »

vishnu_ks wrote: post #80

I recently listened to a podcast in which James Beshar interviews an anonymous San Francisco police officer who has been in the service for a long time. The police officer said that there are a lot of loopholes(not talking about paroles, probation or anything related) in California justice system in particular that allows felons to come out much faster than the actual time sentenced. For example felons that are sente…

The "anonymous officer" is misstating the way the rules actually work to the point of basically lying about them. (Actual rules: http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/CalculatingCusto...)

Custody credits. For crimes committed after October 2011, defendants who do not misbehave while in jail will receive 1 day of "conduct credits" for every 1 days of actual jail time served. Felons will similarly receive 1 day of conduct credit for every day of actual time served in prison while on good behavior. However, felons convicted of a violent crime only receive 15% conduct credit for time served (so 1 day of "conduct credit" for every 15 days of jail time served) and 0% credit if convicted of murder.

The only crimes you can (or could) receive 30+ year sentences for in CA are violent crimes (like rape, armed robbery, or murder) or 3-strikes sentences, and such sentencing is no longer possible for a 3rd strike unless the 3rd strike is a violent crime.

So lawyers game this so that the felons stay in these prisons/jails longer than other prisons and come out faster.

The police officer is lying. Credits are based on statutory formulas and no facility provides any more custody credits than any other, because the facility doesn't determine how many credits you get.

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

#149

Post by gamblor956 »

vishnu_ks wrote: post #87
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you call "loopholes" are thankfully a standard part of most justice systems, by design. It's called parole, sometimes released on licence. First you have to get past the parole board who will assess your suitability for release. The theory is to grant you supervised access back to society to regain your place in society. While on parole there's all sorts of reason you can find yourself back inside. Half or two t…

I am not taking about Parole or Probation. Time sentenced in certain jails or prisons would be counted as 2x or 3x more the time served. So cases are often delayed by the lawyers so that felons stay in these jails longer and can come out early. The podcast has more details. I am myself not well versed with the exact terminology. Updated my original comment for clarity.

I'm not going to reply to all of your follow-up comments, but it simply isn't possible to get 2x or 3x time served based on where you serve your sentence.

The 2x time served is a good conduct credit equal to one day of conduct credit for every day served on good behavior. If you misbehave or commit further crimes in jail or prison, you don't get the credit.

Violent felons get significantly less credit for good behavior (15%) and murderers aren't even eligible.

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

#150

Post by Teknoman117 »

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.

It's more of a comment on how we spin the justice system. We say things like "they're sent to prison so they can be reformed," But if we _really_ believed that, why are we restricting their behaviors post release? (past some period of observation)

The truth is that it's a punitive system, rather than trying to do anything productive about it.

Post reply on HN