POLL: Should LEGAL Immigrants Be Called/Allowed To Serve On Juries?

[Jack Davenport]

Yeah let's seat jurors that aren't even capable of voting for the very people that make the laws that they may be considering.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

For starters these legal residents are not being drafted. If they were I would say they should be afforded these rights. They join to earn an income.

Hmm. That is interesting. One is voluntary and the other is not.

Would it still be objectionable then if a system were put in place for citizens and non-citizens to volunteer for jury duty? Perhaps have this pool of people more readily drawn from (not that it would be a very large pool, since let's face it... who the fuck wants to serve on a jury? Obviously I'm just looking at this from a theoretical standpoint and wondering where the line is drawn and why).

EDIT

Yeah let's seat jurors that aren't even capable of voting for the very people that make the laws that they may be considering.

Well, they can join the military but not vote for the politicians that send them to war. So I don't know that, that should be an issue. :dunno:

/EDIT

 

[georges]

(And yes, I know that georges lives somewhere in Europe [alone, with his hatred for everything that isn't him], but we can't take the chance in case he ever washes up here.)

I live in France. I have nothing to reproach myself because my record is clean. I don't deal drugs and even I washed up there as you say, I have relatives in the US and also some friends who are in the law enforcement. You should worry more about the illegal citizens crossing the mexican border or the people rotting in your jail cells as well as the people who have a record as big as the harraps dictionary and who are convicted scumbags. I just have a dislike for scumbags, criminals and illegal aliens. I like honest law abiding citizens who work hard and who don't worship the socialist ideas.

 

[Jack Davenport]

They volunteer knowing full well they can be sent into war. thus relinquishing any reasonable argument that they are somehow being forced into service while being represented. And even US citizen military personnel cannot sue the government for any injury stemming from military service because of the Feres Doctrine. Your argument while sparking interesting discussion is a red herring.

 

[georges]

I am a legal citizen of the United States. It took me years and thousands of dollars to become one. I now enjoy all the rights, privileges, and obligations that come along with that. Are you saying I should not be allowed to serve on jury duty? Why, pray tell.

What tells me that you are a true patriot supporting the second amendment and your troops? Do you want an America with Obama ugly socialist ideas to be implemented, the second amendment screwed up and the affordable healthcare called Obamacare which is supposed to embetter American citizens lives implemented too? If you are liberal and you endorse any or all of the Obama policies and if you are also against the death penalty, then you should never be allowed to serve on jury duty.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

They volunteer knowing full well they can be sent into war. thus relinquishing any reasonable argument that they are somehow being forced into service while being represented. And even US citizen military personnel cannot sue the government for any injury stemming from military service because of the Feres Doctrine. Your argument while sparking interesting discussion is a red herring.

It's actually not a red herring. It was meant to tie in with the above portion as well, the question as to whether it would be objectionable for some form of voluntary jury duty (which I doubt would ever work, but simply put forward as a hypothetical). I'm curious where the line is drawn and why.

I mean, we do already have certain societal obligations that are put upon these people (we have them pay taxes for instance). While obviously voting must remain the sovereign territory of citizens, I'm not sure that jury duty also qualifies.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Read thread title

My mistake, and that time stamp was off...it was 5:00 am...still had eye boogers.

 

[Jack Davenport]

An all voluntary jury pool would be a curious thing as most people try just about everything to be excluded from jury duty. I just think that their are certain things that should be the responsibility of citizens.
And jury duty is one of them. Again the military has a lot of rules that civilians do not have to adhere to. I was with my nephew who is a Marine off base a few weeks ago and he was going into a grocery store and a Lt.Colonel chewed him a new one because he was not in complete uniform just t shirt and his desert digital camo pants.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

An all voluntary jury pool would be a curious thing as most people try just about everything to be excluded from jury duty. I just think that their are certain things that should be the responsibility of citizens.
And jury duty is one of them. Again the military has a lot of rules that civilians do not have to adhere to. I was with my nephew who is a Marine off base a few weeks ago and he was going into a grocery store and a Lt.Colonel chewed him a new one because he was not in complete uniform just t shirt and his desert digital camo pants.

Okay. Personal preference is a valid reason I suppose.

I guess this does raises the question of whether you think non-citizens should serve in the military, or whether you'd rather see that changed?

Though I am curious as to how the rules of the military apply to the conversation. I'm not sure I see it. They apply to citizens and non-citizens. There are rules for behavior in a courtroom, and how a jury should conduct themselves. I'd assume the rules would be the same for citizens and non-citizens in this case. If it's a question of accountability, and the rules for a juror aren't adequate for a non-citizen, then wouldn't they be equally inadequate for a citizen? I mean, the Declaration of Human Rights mandates equality before the law for both citizens and non-citizens, doesn't it? So by default any measures taken to assure accountability would, logically, have to be the same and thus either adequate or inadequate for both thanks to their sameness. So standardized rules and accountability should serve, no? So I'm not sure I see the correlation. :dunno: (though admittedly I'm tired, so maybe I'm just reading something wrong)

 

[lurkingdirk]

What tells me that you are a true patriot supporting the second amendment and your troops? Do you want an America with Obama ugly socialist ideas to be implemented, the second amendment screwed up and the affordable healthcare called Obamacare which is supposed to embetter American citizens lives implemented too? If you are liberal and you endorse any or all of the Obama policies and if you are also against the death penalty, then you should never be allowed to serve on jury duty.

You cannot be this narcissistic. Did you really just, in essence, say "If you don't agree with georges opinion on what is good for America, you can't be on a jury"? Here are a couple of points for you to consider.
1. I can have objections to the various amendments to the constitution, and still be pro-American. You seem to think that the second amendment trumps all others, and if someone believes in gun control, they are anti-American. That is a small minded, ridiculous position that precludes a huge number of people from being considered American. Fail #1.
2. What does it mean to be a "true patriot supporting...your troops?" Do you do that? Do you fly out and do concerts for them? Send them nudie pictures? Do you make care packages with clean, warm socks for those on the front lines? Or do you put some stupid sticker on your car that says "support the troops" (Or "soutenir les troupes") Tell me, georges, how are you a true patriot supporting the troops? Fail #2.
3. President Obama is not a Socialist. If you think he is, you're not looking very carefully at the policies enacted under his presidency, and you don't have a very good idea of what Socialism is. Sorry, that's fail #3.
4. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is law. It was created by a legally elected government, passed all levels of government approval, and withstood scrutiny by the highest legal court in the land. It really doesn't matter if you like it, hate it, or what not. It's the law. You're going to either get over your hatred of this, or you're going to keep spinning your wheels about this issue with absolutely no impact whatsoever. Must be frustrating. Fail #4.
5. I have never said I endorse all of the current President's policies. Fail #5.
6. No one who is a true American is allowed to be against the death penalty? Is that because it is law, or because georges said so? Let me help you answer that: it isn't law. You don't like freedom, do you, georges? You want to dictate what people like, what they believe, and how the government treats them. According to you, I have to absolutely embrace a hatred of the President, I may not like the Affordable Care Act, I must believe that guns are good for everyone, and I absolutely must believe that the death penalty is the only correct recourse. Fail #6.
Regardless of whether I believe these things or not, georges, what you're suggesting is not a free nation, but one in which beliefs are dictated. That's not the American freedom of thought and ideas that the nation enjoys, georges, that is you trying to impose your own bile and bigotry on me. I don't want it. If you're going to embrace the idea of freedom of beliefs and freedom of speech, you better be willing to stand up and vehemently defend the person who would shout you down in an argument. If you're not, you're just being false about your desires for freedom for Americans.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Yer Happy we are going off in a bit of a strange direction with tying in the military into a discussion about legal residents serving as jurors. You brought up that non citizens serve in the US military which is a good point but I don't think it is germaine to the discussion because the military is pretty much it's own entity with some governmental regulation. They of course answer to lawmakers and brass are called before congress all the time. They are reliant on congressionial funding and answer to the president but after that they run themselves. even their own courts where this became part of this topic.I do think any legal resident that serves honorably in the military should be granted an expedited path to citizenship.

 

[lurkingdirk]

What has the policy in the past been on conscripting non-citizens? During Vietnam did you have to be a citizen, or merely a legal resident to have your number come up?

 

[Jack Davenport]

I am actually not sure. I still can't believe I live in a country that allowed black citizens to serve and give their lives yet made them use separate water fountains and restrooms.

 

[Petra]

No, in any case. This right should be reserved solely and exclusively to born and bread Americans

Why? It's in the US Constitution (the sixth in case you didn't know) that the defendant has a right to an impartial jury. If he's on a jury trial and there's no legal residents who understand the issues that come with being merely a resident, only citizens in the jury, that's not exactly peers is it?

What a stupid fucking question considering the venire facias is typically generated through voter registration logs. although property records and drivers license renewals are used in some jurisdictions the best way to create a pool of non felons is through voter registration records. Not to mention the almost impossible task of qualifying them if they aren't fluent in English. If they aren't a citizen, fuck no!

I think most legal residents will have a decent grip on english. I'm not sure how many legal residents these days are hispanic, but a good majority come from Europe, Japan, etc where english is taught as a second language. They almost have to due to the demands to get a US resident permit. It's not a easy process.

 

[georges]

Why? It's in the US Constitution (the sixth in case you didn't know) that the defendant has a right to an impartial jury. If he's on a jury trial and there's no legal residents who understand the issues that come with being merely a resident, only citizens in the jury, that's not exactly peers is it?

I didn't know that thanks for pointing it out. To be honest with you I have rarely seen a jury that wasn't impartial, unless I am aware of. But where I disagree with you is the following point, what do you do if the merely residents have no knowledge of the US Judicial system nor the constitution. Is that supposed to be reassuring? I bet not.

 

[Cumsalot]

Our president is from Kenya, so why not? LOL

 

[abc432123]

This is misleading. I know plenty of "real Americans" who are willing to do those jobs. They just want fair pay to do the work, not peanuts. The reason why "illegals" are "taking our jerbs" is because they're being hired - read: exploited - by employers who want to cut costs and overhead by not fully paying for the work. The problem isn't just the so-called "illegals" , it's also the ones doing the hiring.

It's a little more than that actually - there are 2 sides to this:

1. They can pay a lower cost for the labor and avoid paying for a lot of the legal protections (like workers comp and so on).

2. The illegals can create and exist in a cash economy. Despite lower wages, they make nearly as much as any american because they don't have to pay taxes, mortgages, and a whole lot of other things. There wasa fascinating study showing that the average illegal on lower wages NETS as much or more than the average american on minimum wage. This makes the illegals enthusiastic workers and disheartens the legal workers.

There need to be 3 things done to fix the problem:

1. Implementation of existing and new fines on employers who hire illegals - make their risk/cost of hiring greater than hiring legally and they will automatically choose to do so.
2. Swift arrest and deportation of illegals along with much stricter border security to prevent illegal crossings.
3. Simplified tax code with lower taxes on businesses and individuals. This increases incentive for businesses to hire, and increases the net amount legal workers get to keep.

I did not need MSNBC or Fox to tell me this. I didn't read any special book about it. I'm not parroting some politicians idea. Common sense is a fairly good tool when it comes to solving common problems.

--------

On topic: Permanent residents who have been here for more than 5-7 years, own property, and have paid more than a certain threshold (lets say $50,000) in taxes should be allowed to serve on jury duty. The laws they are judging clearly affect their own property, happiness and life as well and they have demonstrated responsibility.
On the other hand, legal or not, anyone on significant government welfare for more than 6 months in the past 5 years should not be allowed to vote or affect any laws.

 

[Petra]

I didn't know that thanks for pointing it out. To be honest with you I have rarely seen a jury that wasn't impartial, unless I am aware of. But where I disagree with you is the following point, what do you do if the merely residents have no knowledge of the US Judicial system nor the constitution. Is that supposed to be reassuring? I bet not.

I'd say 99% of citizens, natural or no, probably have little to no knowledge of the US judicial system or constitution. However, this is compensated for by the instructions that a judge will give to the jury.

If you are a jury member, you don't think for yourself. Every single law in the state or federal criminal code has a list of things that needs to happen in order for that crime to have been commited. Since I'm most familiar with the RCW (revised code of Washington state) title 9a which is the state's criminal codes, I'll use this in my example.

Now, when it comes down to the jury instructions, more than likely they're going to get something that looks pretty close to the definition of the crime. They have to decide if every part of the definition is met.

Say they sit through a trial for someone getting a charge of burglary in the first degree. The jury doesn't get to formulate an individual opinion. They have to go through this definition and decide if all the elements of the crime were present or not. So say facts about our defendant came out that they did indeed intend to commit a crime against the person in the abode, but they didn't enter or remain unlawfully (say they were given a key) nor was there a fight or weapons. Then this isn't burglary in the first degree and the jury will have to find the person not guilty of this charge.

So the jury is instructed in everything and never have to really think about the process other than did the elements of this crime, as given in the instructions, happen.

I don't think being a citizen is going to make a better juror than a mere resident.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This is a moot point because I can request to strike any person from the venire for just about any reason excluding race. And instructions to the jury are given in as what they can consider in reaching a verdict. If a prospective juror does not have a command of the English language they certainly aren't going to be able to weigh the evidence. I am not too worried about it. This is an issue true to form that first is raised in California.

 

[bobjustbob]

Jury duty has been a hit or miss with me. Been off for many years and then got hammered every 6 mos. I bring The Form with me now. Twice being very lucrative. Last out I was picked and had one chance to get off. It was a dog bite case. Here I sit in the box and the judge had one last question. "Does anyone here think they should not serve on this jury?" I raised my hand. I have been bitten by a dog and could not be unbiased. Back to the pool I went.

Jury duty is for citizens. A civic duty. If you're not a citizen then you can't participate. Sorry Jorges.