Comments on: Criminal Background Checks Of Jurors http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:41:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: LM http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html/comment-page-1#comment-56031 LM Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:21:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/criminal-background-checks-of-jurors.html#comment-56031 "The idea is to discourage all but rich people - those who have nothing to lose - from serving." I'm not so sure about that. If I make $100 per hour as an attorney, but am only compensated $20/hour as a juror (more or less, depending on where you live), I have every (economic) incentive NOT to serve on a jury. I think the rationale behind the policy is that persons with a criminal record might lie about their background during voir dire. The background check serves to ensure that attorneys know whether the juror was honest about his record. Honesty, after all, is a virtue, and I think we'd all prefer to have honest jurors deciding our fate, rather than dishonest ones. (Whether that actually happens is up for debate.) “The idea is to discourage all but rich people – those who have nothing to lose – from serving.”

I’m not so sure about that. If I make $100 per hour as an attorney, but am only compensated $20/hour as a juror (more or less, depending on where you live), I have every (economic) incentive NOT to serve on a jury.

I think the rationale behind the policy is that persons with a criminal record might lie about their background during voir dire. The background check serves to ensure that attorneys know whether the juror was honest about his record. Honesty, after all, is a virtue, and I think we’d all prefer to have honest jurors deciding our fate, rather than dishonest ones. (Whether that actually happens is up for debate.)

]]> By: Sorry http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html/comment-page-1#comment-56030 Sorry Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:44:18 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/criminal-background-checks-of-jurors.html#comment-56030 The idea is to discourage all but rich people - those who have nothing to lose - from serving. Just like extremely low salaries for many public service jobs make it impossible for anybody but the well to do to consider taking them. They don't pay enough to live on. There are subtle trends like this all through society, and they are disturbing. The idea is to discourage all but rich people – those who have nothing to lose – from serving.

Just like extremely low salaries for many public service jobs make it impossible for anybody but the well to do to consider taking them. They don’t pay enough to live on.

There are subtle trends like this all through society, and they are disturbing.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html/comment-page-1#comment-56029 Andrew Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:20:19 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/criminal-background-checks-of-jurors.html#comment-56029 I don't know that this would provide that much more of a disincentive for ex-cons to show up for jury service. First, I wonder how widely known it is that these checks are not already performed, or that one's criminal history is not generally known within a courthouse, that there isn't some giant database connecting all your information already. Second, isn't one's criminal history a routine question in voir dire? It would seem to me, as someone who has never served on a jury, but who has read a fair number of judicial opinions involving voir dire, that you have better-than-even chances of that coming up at some point anyway. What difference, then, would a background check make, except for those who might lie about their criminal past? I don’t know that this would provide that much more of a disincentive for ex-cons to show up for jury service. First, I wonder how widely known it is that these checks are not already performed, or that one’s criminal history is not generally known within a courthouse, that there isn’t some giant database connecting all your information already.

Second, isn’t one’s criminal history a routine question in voir dire? It would seem to me, as someone who has never served on a jury, but who has read a fair number of judicial opinions involving voir dire, that you have better-than-even chances of that coming up at some point anyway. What difference, then, would a background check make, except for those who might lie about their criminal past?

]]> By: LM http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html/comment-page-1#comment-56028 LM Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:30:33 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/criminal-background-checks-of-jurors.html#comment-56028 This is a purely rhetorical question, but I have to wonder: What do we consider to be an "impartial jury"? Additionally, I find it disconcerting that America now has about 13 million ex-felons. If every state were to adopt Illinois' policy, then 7% of the adult population would be ineligible to serve on a jury. This policy appears to be just one more addition to a profusion of roadblocks that ex-offenders face in attempting to re-enter society (in the sense that the privilege -- if we can call it that -- of serving on a jury is deprived of ex-offenders, thereby creating an "us versus them" dichotomy). Ex-offenders have served their time, so why do we continue to punish, even after they are released from prison? This is a purely rhetorical question, but I have to wonder: What do we consider to be an “impartial jury”?

Additionally, I find it disconcerting that America now has about 13 million ex-felons. If every state were to adopt Illinois’ policy, then 7% of the adult population would be ineligible to serve on a jury.

This policy appears to be just one more addition to a profusion of roadblocks that ex-offenders face in attempting to re-enter society (in the sense that the privilege — if we can call it that — of serving on a jury is deprived of ex-offenders, thereby creating an “us versus them” dichotomy).

Ex-offenders have served their time, so why do we continue to punish, even after they are released from prison?

]]> By: Maryland Conservatarian http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/12/criminal_backgr.html/comment-page-1#comment-56027 Maryland Conservatarian Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:10:40 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/12/criminal-background-checks-of-jurors.html#comment-56027 perhaps our experiences are a little different but here in Baltimore, people don't ignore jury summons because they think they WON'T get picked - I belive you get the word out that prior convictions could keep you off a jury and people will be bringing their rap sheets to jury duty just to make sure the court has the whole record; people will be asking if speeding tickets count and jaywalking on the way to court for as long as it takes to get caught. left unsaid is where you would draw the line. what questions should be permitted and what shouldn't. As a Crim Defense lawyer, I probably wouldn't object to somebody just because they have a record but I certainly understand the reluctance of the state...and further the general populace if convicted persons are passing judgment on others. perhaps our experiences are a little different but here in Baltimore, people don’t ignore jury summons because they think they WON’T get picked – I belive you get the word out that prior convictions could keep you off a jury and people will be bringing their rap sheets to jury duty just to make sure the court has the whole record; people will be asking if speeding tickets count and jaywalking on the way to court for as long as it takes to get caught.

left unsaid is where you would draw the line. what questions should be permitted and what shouldn’t. As a Crim Defense lawyer, I probably wouldn’t object to somebody just because they have a record but I certainly understand the reluctance of the state…and further the general populace if convicted persons are passing judgment on others.

]]>