Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Criminals should be allowed to do jury duty

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:28:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand it either--along with them being disenfranchised if they've been convicted of a felony.

I'm for tough punishment on crime, but I do think that once your debt to society has been paid, you shouldn't be penalized/persecuted BY society further.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:28:23 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I don't understand it either--along with them being disenfranchised if they've been convicted of a felony.

I'm for tough punishment on crime, but I do think that once your debt to society has been paid, you shouldn't be penalized/persecuted BY society further.

Wtf? Someone actually agrees with me. I expected people to vehemently disagree. What I was interested was to see their logic behind their disagreement.

Anyway, DNinja, I think we both agree on a position that no one else agrees on, so cheers to that!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:34:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think crime would go down if criminals could serve on juries. Why do you think people commit crimes in the first place; obviously to get out of jury duty.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:34:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think crime would go down if criminals could serve on juries. Why do you think people commit crimes in the first place; obviously to get out of jury duty.

This actually brings up another point--it seems that criminals become second-class citizens after their out of prison--felons are disenfranchised, and criminals are practically pariah-d, especially sex offenders.

People forget that they are still a member of society and a citizen, and once they're but of prison, they should get back all the rights and responsibilities they previously would have. Though I am an atheist, the "who is without sin cast the first stone," rings true here. People turn their noses up at a convict, when they themselves realize that everyone commits transgressions--just some people actually end up paying for it, and the ones who never get caught get to at like hoity toity a-holes.

Sorry. Rant over.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:43:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:39:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:34:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think crime would go down if criminals could serve on juries. Why do you think people commit crimes in the first place; obviously to get out of jury duty.

This actually brings up another point--it seems that criminals become second-class citizens after their out of prison--felons are disenfranchised, and criminals are practically pariah-d, especially sex offenders.

People forget that they are still a member of society and a citizen, and once they're but of prison, they should get back all the rights and responsibilities they previously would have. Though I am an atheist, the "who is without sin cast the first stone," rings true here. People turn their noses up at a convict, when they themselves realize that everyone commits transgressions--just some people actually end up paying for it, and the ones who never get caught get to at like hoity toity a-holes.

Sorry. Rant over.

You know that is absolutely true. Sex offenders get a raw deal. Once they out of prison, guaranteed lifetime unemployment. Who will hire them. I think the sex offender's registry should be abolished as should all background checks. Whatever crime someone commits is their own business, not their potential employers.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:47:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:43:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:39:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:34:52 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think crime would go down if criminals could serve on juries. Why do you think people commit crimes in the first place; obviously to get out of jury duty.

This actually brings up another point--it seems that criminals become second-class citizens after their out of prison--felons are disenfranchised, and criminals are practically pariah-d, especially sex offenders.

People forget that they are still a member of society and a citizen, and once they're but of prison, they should get back all the rights and responsibilities they previously would have. Though I am an atheist, the "who is without sin cast the first stone," rings true here. People turn their noses up at a convict, when they themselves realize that everyone commits transgressions--just some people actually end up paying for it, and the ones who never get caught get to at like hoity toity a-holes.

Sorry. Rant over.

You know that is absolutely true. Sex offenders get a raw deal. Once they out of prison, guaranteed lifetime unemployment. Who will hire them. I think the sex offender's registry should be abolished as should all background checks. Whatever crime someone commits is their own business, not their potential employers.

I agree. I very much believe sex offense (sexual assault, especially on a child by an adult) is one of the most heinous crimes. However, it's in a different realm. Crimes related to pedophilia are caused in part by a mental illness, which requires psychotherapy. This is by NO means an excuse, but the fact of the matter is is that many people who have committed a sex offense on a child suffer from a mental illness.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:49:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Obvious generalization is obvious.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
randolph7
Posts: 307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Oddly, mirza I have a feeling they would be harder on their fellow criminals than the average jury. The human mind is a strange thing.
"ahh but i have indeed found the burdon of truth the, muffs have found it. oh mothy dear dear mothy"
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:00:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:49:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Obvious generalization is obvious.

You never wonder why recidivism rates are so high, do you?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:00:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:59:53 PM, randolph7 wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Oddly, mirza I have a feeling they would be harder on their fellow criminals than the average jury. The human mind is a strange thing.

I'm not mirza. Anyway... That may be true but on either end of the spectrum is shows a bias.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:01:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:49:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Obvious generalization is obvious.

You never wonder why recidivism rates are so high, do you?

That has more to do with our current system/societal mindset than criminals themselves (NOTE: I am for tougher sentences WHILE THEY'RE IN the system, not out).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:01:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 10:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:49:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Obvious generalization is obvious.

You never wonder why recidivism rates are so high, do you?

That has more to do with our current system/societal mindset than criminals themselves (NOTE: I am for tougher sentences WHILE THEY'RE IN the system, not out).

Because the criminal mentality does not cause criminal activity...
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:08:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:04:54 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 10:01:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 10:00:02 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:49:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:47:58 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:51 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:45:23 PM, Mestari wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:25:10 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Why are convicted criminals not allowed to serve on a jury? Criminals have been in front of a jury before, they have more experience with the law having been tried by it. The accused is entitled to a jury of his peers. Now if the accused were really guilty, then he would be a convicted criminal. Shouldn't he also be entitled to be tried before a jury of other convicted criminals? Criminals having been accused know what it is like to be sitting in the witness chair defending themselves. They are the ones best equipped to make a decision of guilt or innocence, not a random group of people who may have never seen the inside of a courtroom.

I would figure that criminals would be particularly bias.

Why?

They would feel wronged by society and want retribution.

Obvious generalization is obvious.

You never wonder why recidivism rates are so high, do you?

That has more to do with our current system/societal mindset than criminals themselves (NOTE: I am for tougher sentences WHILE THEY'RE IN the system, not out).

Because the criminal mentality does not cause criminal activity...

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the idea that criminals all feel wronged by society is absurd.

Even if it was true, they would be justified in this belief, depending on the why. And also, that would be an issue with society, as our own society helps breed criminal mentality.

However, I DO see where you're coming from.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:08:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How are recidivism rates indicative of the fact that they want retribution on society? The reason criminals recidivize is because of need. Society shuns them, they get no job, their only option is to commit the crimes again.

I do think that they would include the other criminals as part of society and would impartially evaluate their guilt. Criminals don't all know each other and they are certainly not friends. It is not like they go "Hey, are you criminal, I'm a criminal too! How is it going? What did you do? Where did you serve? Who was your warden? Blah Blah Blah"
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:14:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The argument is not that recidivism rates are indicative of bias, but that they both stem from a common source which is the criminal mentality. I never said that ALL criminals would be bias, only that on balance most would. Society shunned them, yes, so why would they judge society fairly?
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:27:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:08:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How are recidivism rates indicative of the fact that they want retribution on society? The reason criminals recidivize is because of need. Society shuns them, they get no job, their only option is to commit the crimes again.

I do think that they would include the other criminals as part of society and would impartially evaluate their guilt. Criminals don't all know each other and they are certainly not friends. It is not like they go "Hey, are you criminal, I'm a criminal too! How is it going? What did you do? Where did you serve? Who was your warden? Blah Blah Blah"

Criminals recitivate because the prison environment exacerbates the problem. People often come out of prison worse than they were when they went in.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:27:55 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 10/13/2011 10:08:59 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
How are recidivism rates indicative of the fact that they want retribution on society? The reason criminals recidivize is because of need. Society shuns them, they get no job, their only option is to commit the crimes again.

I do think that they would include the other criminals as part of society and would impartially evaluate their guilt. Criminals don't all know each other and they are certainly not friends. It is not like they go "Hey, are you criminal, I'm a criminal too! How is it going? What did you do? Where did you serve? Who was your warden? Blah Blah Blah"

Criminals recitivate because the prison environment exacerbates the problem. People often come out of prison worse than they were when they went in.

This.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:49:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What if an ex-con is on a jury watching a trial. The ex-con remembers back when he was on trial, wishing strongly for a not guilty verdict. Remembering that feeling, he may be more likely to sympathize with the defendant and work to get him off.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 10:56:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:49:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
What if an ex-con is on a jury watching a trial. The ex-con remembers back when he was on trial, wishing strongly for a not guilty verdict. Remembering that feeling, he may be more likely to sympathize with the defendant and work to get him off.

If that were true, victims should be prohibited from serving on the jury as well. They are more likely to remember hoping for a guilty verdict.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 11:02:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 10:56:11 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/13/2011 10:49:06 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
What if an ex-con is on a jury watching a trial. The ex-con remembers back when he was on trial, wishing strongly for a not guilty verdict. Remembering that feeling, he may be more likely to sympathize with the defendant and work to get him off.

If that were true, victims should be prohibited from serving on the jury as well. They are more likely to remember hoping for a guilty verdict.

I agree. Particularly when the defendant is being accused of the same crime as the victim suffered.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 11:38:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 9:43:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
You know that is absolutely true. Sex offenders get a raw deal. Once they out of prison, guaranteed lifetime unemployment. Who will hire them. I think the sex offender's registry should be abolished as should all background checks. Whatever crime someone commits is their own business, not their potential employers.

So someone who was convicted of raping several 6 year old boys should not have their information presented to a potential employer who may run a daycare? Sex offenders do get a raw deal in the sense that after they are released they are still stigmatized by society, but when it comes to employment, employers should have the right to make damn sure that they aren't employing shady people with records if they don't want them.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 12:14:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 11:38:42 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 10/13/2011 9:43:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
You know that is absolutely true. Sex offenders get a raw deal. Once they out of prison, guaranteed lifetime unemployment. Who will hire them. I think the sex offender's registry should be abolished as should all background checks. Whatever crime someone commits is their own business, not their potential employers.

So someone who was convicted of raping several 6 year old boys should not have their information presented to a potential employer who may run a daycare? Sex offenders do get a raw deal in the sense that after they are released they are still stigmatized by society, but when it comes to employment, employers should have the right to make damn sure that they aren't employing shady people with records if they don't want them.

Right, but there has to be some measure to prevent the truly reformed people from never getting a decent job. The problem is particularly prominent with juveniles, who may commit some crime out of young impulse, but mature into a better person later. But if they were tried in adult court, they're going to get the criminal record, which will force them to work at Mcdonald's for life.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:53:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Society gets to decide what is required to fulfill one's debt to society, and that is often restriction on voting rights and jury duty service. Sex offenders have to register.

Sometimes a person makes a mistake and then reforms after a single felony conviction, but the recidivism rate overall is about 80%. So most often, a convicted felon continues as a criminal. The reason that we don't want criminals on juries is that they are likely to accept weak excuses from fellow criminals as part of rationalizing a life of crime.

Keep in mind that misdemeanors and infractions are not disqualifying, at least not in the places where I've served on juries. I can tell you that a defense attorney's ideal juror is an unemployed housewife with a prior conviction for drug possession.

After ten years without a conviction, I think it is reasonable to conclude that a person has reformed, rather than is between crimes. Then voting and jury service should be restored.