There's got to be something in the water out in California, the stupid ideas are non-stop.


The Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote an op-ed Tuesday arguing that not only should former inmates be given the right to vote, but they should be allowed to serve on juries as well.

The LA Times claimed that former inmates deserve “a clean slate and a chance to start over,” and part of that chance is restoring their duty to judge fellow citizens with respect to the law. The editorial board lauded California for automatically restoring an inmate’s right to vote after he has served his sentence, but also urged lawmakers to pass a bill granting felons jury eligibility as well.

The Times dismissed arguments claiming convicted felons are poor judges of character and argued instead that lawmakers who oppose the bill are simply “more concerned with currying favor with law enforcement and prosecutorial groups than the ability of their constituents to fully reenter society.”

“There is a process for examining members of the jury pool for prejudice and fitness to serve, and for excusing those who are less likely to be fair,” the board wrote. “That’s the way it works with prospective jurors who are crime victims, lawyers, insurance adjusters, human resource managers, elected officials — any of whom might harbor some kind of prejudice based on their experiences or outlooks, and all of whom are subject to examination and dismissal where appropriate. They are not subject to blanket bans against being even considered for jury service, nor should they be. Neither should convicted felons who have done their time.”

Some argue a blanket ban is necessary because those who have broken the law severely enough to go to prison may not be qualified interpreters of the law. The Times did not address this, however, instead claiming that post-prison penalties like the ban are “spiteful and stupid.”

“We encounter former felons every day, working alongside us, driving next to us, living across the street,” the board wrote. “Once a sentence is completed a citizen should be able to fully return to the fold, with all rights — and duties — returned, consistent with public safety.”


http://dailycaller.com/2017/11...-to-serve-on-juries/

I think ol' Charlie Manson is available for jury duty again.

“It takes one to know one.” The oldest wisdom of childhood.

If needed, I am to be judged by my peers. I don't consider criminal felons to be my peers, so no I don't want felons on juries. It's that simple.

The definition of peers: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/peers

Jim

Its just a ploy to pack the jury and voter rolls with "D" folks. Remember, not all democrats are horse thieves, but all horse thieves are democrats (Horace Greely). Today, that has changed a bit. Because not all democrats are car thieves or robbers, but the vast majority of those are democrats.

We already elect enough thieves to office, who thinks the ones that can vote would elect those who would prosecute?

Next question, there are clearly repeat offenders who have a vested interest in less severe sentences or even their friends an coworkers getting off easy. Why would this be a good idea?

What do you expect, it’s C A L I F O R N I A, home of the liberal/crazies.

The idea does have some merit - but not as jurors.

Assign them as "detective" interns. Each crime solved reduces their sentence by 3 minutes.

I don’t believe in restoring civil rights for felons. No guns, no voting, no holding office, jury, etc.

That idiot governor in Virginia tried it, the courts slapped him down for trying it en masse, so he sat around signing individual pardons for thousands and thousands of felons.

This is what happens when you vote for God Damned Commies.

Pointless, will never clear Voir Dire. Not a single one would ever be seated.

ETA yes it actually does have a point. Shows how fucking stupid the LA Times is.

I do not see a, legitimate, way to deprive someone of the right to be armed, once they have fully served their sentence, than there would be to deprive them of the freedom of speech or the right to practice their faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
once they have fully served their sentence,

So fully served is the sentence given, or the time they get the early out. After having their death sentence commuted by a court, then released early due to good behavior. Remember, they're in there due to bad behavior.

If there is a more biased, less impartial potential juror than a former shitbird, I can't think of it.

How about they start by hiring them to be on staff, writing "news" stories - couldn't be bigger works of BS then they already publish.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I do not see a, legitimate, way to deprive someone of the right to be armed, once they have fully served their sentence, than there would be to deprive them of the freedom of speech or the right to practice their faith.

They haven't fully served their sentence when they leave prison. Prison time is only part of a sentence.
After release from prison they also have parole/probation, possible fines, and a lifelong ban on things like voting and firearms possession as just another part of the sentence.
After they serve the lifelong part, they are welcome to reclaim their rights as many Chicago voters do.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 220-9er,

Following the reasoning of the LA Times, why shouldn't they be able to vote and serve on juries while they are still in prison? Just because it's too inconvenient for the state?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
If needed, I am to be judged by my peers. I don't consider criminal felons to be my peers, so no I don't want felons on juries. It's that simple.

THIS.

"Your honor. I demand a jury of my peers. I dont consider non-detained criminals as my peers."