9 hours ago, theguru said:

but in this case lock them up and throw away the key.

You're too kind.

34 minutes ago, Randy Parker said:

You're too kind.

I don't believe in the death penalty so that is all you can do in my world. 

29 minutes ago, theguru said:

I don't believe in the death penalty so that is all you can do in my world. 

Understood.

In a pretrial hearing last week, defense lawyer Kevin Gough expressed concern that “White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as ‘Bubba’ or ‘Joe Six Pack,’ seem to be significantly underrepresented” in the jury pool. The defense team has “a problem with that,” he said.

Hollywood couldn't write something like this.  Unbelievable.

Juror pools in states often require that you have never been convicted of a felony. As we all know, felony disenfranchisements such as this are rooted in Jim Crow, as a disproportionate amount of African Americans have been convicted of a felony. Per Wikipedia, 26% of Glynn County, Georgia is African American. That would equate to 3 of 12 jurors being African American. But who knows who is "eligible." It could be right in that 1 out of 12 represents the pool of jurors.

1 hour ago, CincySportsFan said:

In a pretrial hearing last week, defense lawyer Kevin Gough expressed concern that “White males born in the South, over 40 years of age, without four-year college degrees, sometimes euphemistically known as ‘Bubba’ or ‘Joe Six Pack,’ seem to be significantly underrepresented” in the jury pool. The defense team has “a problem with that,” he said.

Hollywood couldn't write something like this.  Unbelievable.

It's not unbelievable to me. 

1 hour ago, bugatti said:

Juror pools in states often require that you have never been convicted of a felony. As we all know, felony disenfranchisements such as this are rooted in Jim Crow, as a disproportionate amount of African Americans have been convicted of a felony. Per Wikipedia, 26% of Glynn County, Georgia is African American. That would equate to 3 of 12 jurors being African American. But who knows who is "eligible." It could be right in that 1 out of 12 represents the pool of jurors.

Correct.  The system is working the way it was designed to.  

11 minutes ago, PurplePride92 said:

Correct.  The system is working the way it was designed to.  

Yep. We all have our passions in life that you care about more than anything else. Felons - that have paid their debt to society - being prohibited from being normal members of society is my top one.

I'm not making an argument here. I'm always willing to listen and learn. Do you all believe individuals with felonies should be allow on a jury? @bugatti @TheDeuce @PurplePride92

If so, why? Again, not looking to make it an argument. It's always been my belief that those who legitimately commit a felony clearly show a lack of good judgement as to the laws and aren't someone I'd trust making decisions with such an impact on someone's life. 

I am probably in the minority here but I lean towards having "professional jurors" in our legal system. 

13 minutes ago, ChickenWyngz said:

I'm not making an argument here. I'm always willing to listen and learn. Do you all believe individuals with felonies should be allow on a jury? @bugatti @TheDeuce @PurplePride92

If so, why? Again, not looking to make it an argument. It's always been my belief that those who legitimately commit a felony clearly show a lack of good judgement as to the laws and aren't someone I'd trust making decisions with such an impact on someone's life. 

In a vacuum, sure, that would make sense. But what are we trying to accomplish in life if we are putting people behind bars (and served parole), tell them they have paid their debt to society, yet limit them in life with how they can participate? We are simply repeating the vicious circle. About 30% of black males are automatically eliminated from consideration because of past felony convictions. Regardless of race, we know there is a discrepancy with access to resources in getting a conviction knocked down from a felony to a lesser crime... resources with those from a felony background most likely do not have. 

The other problem with your position - not hating, btw, just having a dialogue - is that it assumes non-felons are capable of making good judgment. There are a lot of whackos, idiots, or horrendous humans that are non-felons.

Again, these disenfranchisement laws were put in place to game the system. "Ok, we can't keep a felon (African American person) behind bars forever, but we can eliminate this person from being on any future jury duties where they may have a differing viewpoint in a case like [Ahmaud Arbery]."

4 minutes ago, theguru said:

I am probably in the minority here but I lean towards having "professional jurors" in our legal system. 

I am not averse to that. Would obviously need to see how it is formulated, but I get it.

1 hour ago, bugatti said:

Yep. We all have our passions in life that you care about more than anything else. Felons - that have paid their debt to society - being prohibited from being normal members of society is my top one.

I agree bug, once you have paid your debt to society you should have the same rights/opportunities as everyone else.  With that said, I am conflicted on a violent felon having access to firearms.  

12 minutes ago, bugatti said:

In a vacuum, sure, that would make sense. But what are we trying to accomplish in life if we are putting people behind bars (and served parole), tell them they have paid their debt to society, yet limit them in life with how they can participate? We are simply repeating the vicious circle. About 30% of black males are automatically eliminated from consideration because of past felony convictions. Regardless of race, we know there is a discrepancy with access to resources in getting a conviction knocked down from a felony to a lesser crime... resources with those from a felony background most likely do not have. 

The other problem with your position - not hating, btw, just having a dialogue - is that it assumes non-felons are capable of making good judgment. There are a lot of whackos, idiots, or horrendous humans that are non-felons.

Again, these disenfranchisement laws were put in place to game the system. "Ok, we can't keep a felon (African American person) behind bars forever, but we can eliminate this person from being on any future jury duties where they may have a differing viewpoint in a case like [Ahmaud Arbery]."

 

I appreciate you being willing to have the dialogue. 

I expected the bolded to be part of a reply, and I agree to an extent. My only thought on that is if it is someone that has been correctly convicted of a felony, then I KNOW they have made questionable decisions based on the legal system. Yeah, there are plenty of whack-jobs that don't have felonies, but I'd hope both sides being able to weed out jurors will help out there. 

As far as your first point, I actually agree... mostly. If someone is convicted of a felony then let them serve their time BUT use that time to educate, etc. Then once they are released for a certain amount of time and have stayed on the right side of the law give some of these privileges back. 

With all that said above, I do believe there are certain felonies that you should live a life without certain privileges and even in shame. Sex related crimes against children come to mind.