Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   California bill would let non-citizens serve on juries   (hosted.ap.org ) divider line
    More: Stupid, jury  
•       •       •

965 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 6:16 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-26 09:52:08 AM  

badhatharry: Probably a good idea to make sure they at least speak English.


I see you read the article.
 
2013-04-26 09:53:00 AM  

nocturnal001: I can't see any good reason why this should happen.

Dealing with the reality by letting illegals get driver's licenses is one thing, but serving on a jury? Plus, aren't jury pools all tied to voter registration?


article says legal aliens
postertard
 
2013-04-26 09:53:48 AM  
I don't know much about California voir dire, but I would hope that this would at least be a cause for dismissing a potential juror. Not saying that they shouldn't serve, but their "peerness" should be sbjetive for each case.
 
2013-04-26 09:55:31 AM  

propasaurus: ...allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty... It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English... they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.

What's the problem?


And we are done here.
 
2013-04-26 09:56:06 AM  

heinekenftw: They're likely to be brown.


So are the defendants.
 
2013-04-26 09:58:37 AM  

Tarkus: That would suck, not having to serve on a jury is the only benefit I get from not becoming a citizen.

/Well, that and it costs a small fortune to become a citizen.
//When did INS become a for-profit group?


When they became ICE?
 
2013-04-26 10:00:03 AM  

cman: The only slight concern I have is with the cultural background of these immigrants.

What we see as justice and morality is probably not the same as a lot of countries in the world.

For example: having a Saudi Arabian man sitting on a case about gender discrimination probably isnt the best idea.


We have ignorant citizens all over this land. If I were a Black dude in the South on trial for killing a white man, I sure as hell wouldn't want the average white person on my jury.
 
2013-04-26 10:07:36 AM  

Notabunny: Meh. One of my friends is an illegal immigrant. He's 50yo, and he was brought here by his parents when he was 3. He served in the Army, he has his own business, he owns two houses, and he put his kids through college. I think the US could survive his serving on a jury.


Do you know why things like this are referred to as 'anecdotal evidence' instead of simply 'evidence'?

/do try to suss it out for yourself.
 
2013-04-26 10:07:45 AM  

nocturnal001: I can't see any good reason why this should happen.

Dealing with the reality by letting illegals get driver's licenses is one thing, but serving on a jury? Plus, aren't jury pools all tied to voter registration?


You missed the part where the immigrants can be non citizens but  have to be legal
 
2013-04-26 10:07:46 AM  

propasaurus: ...allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty... It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English... they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.

What's the problem?


Pretty much this. Some of us have been in the US for decades. We simply don't want to become citizens as it leaves us in the position of being dual citizens that lose a lot of the protections of our home country or having to denounce our original birth location.
 
2013-04-26 10:10:07 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: nocturnal001: I can't see any good reason why this should happen.

Dealing with the reality by letting illegals get driver's licenses is one thing, but serving on a jury? Plus, aren't jury pools all tied to voter registration?

article says legal aliens
postertard


Suck it. Reading non-citizen as "illegal" is a reasonable mistake.

Legal aliens serving on a jury? Still a stupid idea. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is for US citizens, not non citizens.
 
2013-04-26 10:10:17 AM  
Yes because once you enter illegally, you immediately start obeying all laws. Like reporting illegals to immigration. Oh wait...
 
2013-04-26 10:13:46 AM  

loser0: They're here to do the jobs you don't want to do!

/can't believe no one has brought this up yet


At 7.7% unemployment I highly doubt there are any jobs that nobody wants to do. There are just employers that would rather exploit slave labor than pay legal workers what they are worth.
 
2013-04-26 10:14:20 AM  

nocturnal001: The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is for US citizens, not non citizens.


What if the person on trial is non-citizen? That happens a lot of CA.
 
2013-04-26 10:17:05 AM  

odinsposse: loser0: They're here to do the jobs you don't want to do!

/can't believe no one has brought this up yet

At 7.7% unemployment I highly doubt there are any jobs that nobody wants to do. There are just employers that would rather exploit slave labor than pay legal workers what they are worth.


And then be granted employer amnesty through immigration reform. So both guilty parties (excluding the consumers and investors who profit from illegal labor) get off free. What a farkin country. No wonder millions of people live here illegally. How they must laugh at us behind their closed doors.
 
2013-04-26 10:20:46 AM  

thisispete: ArcadianRefugee: In my book, serving this country in such a way should be a fast track to citizenship.

Would you like to know more?

I thought jury pools were selected at random from voter registers. Does California use some other source?


In Chicago, they use the Driver's License pool.
 
2013-04-26 10:22:51 AM  

nocturnal001: TrollingForColumbine: nocturnal001: I can't see any good reason why this should happen.

Dealing with the reality by letting illegals get driver's licenses is one thing, but serving on a jury? Plus, aren't jury pools all tied to voter registration?

article says legal aliens
postertard

Suck it. Reading non-citizen as "illegal" is a reasonable mistake.

Legal aliens serving on a jury? Still a stupid idea. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is for US citizens, not non citizens.


Swallow it
"non-citizens who are in the country legally "
could only be misinterpreted by the willfully ignorant or troll
 
2013-04-26 10:41:24 AM  

nocturnal001: Suck it. Reading non-citizen as "illegal" is a reasonable mistake.


No, it's not.

It's bad enough you just arbitrarily formed an opinion based on your personal bias, but you couldn't even be bothered to read one short farking sentence before blurting it out?

I'd like to invite you to "suck it". And not waste anybody else's time by sharing your ignorant thoughts on the matter again since you've rather decisively proven that they're "thoughts" in name only.
 
2013-04-26 10:47:34 AM  

Krieghund: I'm a Californian. I don't biatch and moan when I get jury duty, but I don't look forward to it. The larger the pool of jurors, the less often I have to serve.

It works for me.


este^
 
2013-04-26 10:50:01 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: nocturnal001: TrollingForColumbine: nocturnal001: I can't see any good reason why this should happen.

Dealing with the reality by letting illegals get driver's licenses is one thing, but serving on a jury? Plus, aren't jury pools all tied to voter registration?

article says legal aliens
postertard

Suck it. Reading non-citizen as "illegal" is a reasonable mistake.

Legal aliens serving on a jury? Still a stupid idea. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is for US citizens, not non citizens.

Swallow it
"non-citizens who are in the country legally "
could only be misinterpreted by the willfully ignorant or troll


Or you know, a normal person that just glanced through the article without picking it apart (truly history's greatest monster). But yeah, go with your drivel instead.

Isn't it a little early in the morning to be so angry?

'http://www.fark.com/comments/7719110/83853506#c83853506">DrewCurt isJr: nocturnal001: The right to a trial by a jury of your peers is for US citizens, not non citizens.

What if the person on trial is non-citizen? That happens a lot of CA.


I thought about that case, which lends some support to this idea I think.

So, our concept of a jury of your peers, intended to avoid bias against the defendent, which I assume was put into place in opposition to the English system where the Judge decides guilt.  Is there more to an effective jury than just beeing peers of the defendent? Wouldn't we also want the jury members to be familiar with the laws and customs of the nation?

Take this extreme case.  A non-citizen muslim is on trial for beating his wife, illegal in the US but not illegal in his home country.  Now, of course we could also wind up with a jury member who happens to see no issue with this crime, but would stocking the jury with this person's peers make sense here? In this case his peers would be other non-citizen muslims who may agree with him despite the law.  (sorry to pick on muslims but it's an easy example)

Of course the same could happen if we were only talking about citizens, but the pool of citizens is likely to have a greater mixture of people than a jury of "non citizens".

I'm not sure if I'm solid on this issue one way or another now that I've broken it down.  This is a tough one.
 
2013-04-26 10:51:46 AM  

TrollingForColumbine: could only be misinterpreted by the willfully ignorant or troll


He lives in the midwest. He lacks experience with foreigners so in his tiny little world "non-citizen" probably does reliably equate to "illegal alien" most of the time.

It really reminds me how amazing it is when flyover people act all shocked and annoyed that left and right coasters so often view them as ignorant, cornfed hicks, though. I routinely work with people on H1-B, B, and F visas so at any given time odds are pretty good I'm in direct contact with at least one or two people who are in the country legally but are not citizens. Yet, because he lacks this experience, he forms his opinion based on ignorance and feels compelled to expound upon it from this position of ignorance.

Basically, because he lacks information, he feels justified in making wild, untrue assumptions, forming a foolish opinion based on those assumptions and then gets defensive when called on it like he's not the one saying stupid things.
 
2013-04-26 10:53:56 AM  

skozlaw: nocturnal001: Suck it. Reading non-citizen as "illegal" is a reasonable mistake.

No, it's not.

It's bad enough you just arbitrarily formed an opinion based on your personal bias, but you couldn't even be bothered to read one short farking sentence before blurting it out?

I'd like to invite you to "suck it". And not waste anybody else's time by sharing your ignorant thoughts on the matter again since you've rather decisively proven that they're "thoughts" in name only.


Jesus christ, people here can be such insufferable assholes.  God forbid anybody make a mistake when commenting on a news article.  Serious business!  I'm sure you have never ever done something like that.

What personal bias?  Methinks you are assuming much without any background information.
 
2013-04-26 11:00:12 AM  

skozlaw: TrollingForColumbine: could only be misinterpreted by the willfully ignorant or troll

He lives in the midwest. He lacks experience with foreigners so in his tiny little world "non-citizen" probably does reliably equate to "illegal alien" most of the time.

It really reminds me how amazing it is when flyover people act all shocked and annoyed that left and right coasters so often view them as ignorant, cornfed hicks, though. I routinely work with people on H1-B, B, and F visas so at any given time odds are pretty good I'm in direct contact with at least one or two people who are in the country legally but are not citizens. Yet, because he lacks this experience, he forms his opinion based on ignorance and feels compelled to expound upon it from this position of ignorance.

Basically, because he lacks information, he feels justified in making wild, untrue assumptions, forming a foolish opinion based on those assumptions and then gets defensive when called on it like he's not the one saying stupid things.


LOL, that really made my morning.  You don't know jack fark about me, or my politics.

First of all, you are a dick for generalizing an entire region of the United States.  Second, I work with a shiat ton of people on work visas, most of them from India or the Philipines, part of the job when you work in IT consulting.  Lastly, I'm actually from the coast, grew up in MD and lived in DC for the rest of the time.  Now, I know that can't compete with the metropolitian mecca that is PA, but it's something.

I would like to thank you though for reminding me that it's not only right wingers who are douchebags, but also many of the left as well.  That's fun for me because the righties are pretty boring, but I do enjoy the slighlty larger challenge when I get to argue with other lefties
 
2013-04-26 11:01:00 AM  

nocturnal001: What personal bias? Methinks you are assuming much without any background information.


Insert Welcome to Fark jpeg
 
2013-04-26 11:08:55 AM  

Frank N Stein: Notabunny: borg: Notabunny: Meh. One of my friends is an illegal immigrant. He's 50yo, and he was brought here by his parents when he was 3. He served in the Army, he has his own business, he owns two houses, and he put his kids through college. I think the US could survive his serving on a jury.

I think you're lying because he would have taken care of it in 1986 either that or he's really stupid.

It must be very frustrating for you that not everybody leads their lives the way you assume they should

Why didn't your friend just get his citizenship when he was in the service?


Y'know, I never asked. None of my business. His dad worked here in the Bracero program and has been here ever since. He never became a citizen, either. Same kind of guy, too. Owned his own business, a taylor shop, owned his home, put his kids through college, an outstanding cook. He grew cactus in his back yard and introduced me to nopales y chorizo, chile rellenos en caldo con nopales, papas y rajas, and chicken mole. I remember skipping dinner so I'd be hungry when I went to his house for breakfast!
 
2013-04-26 12:12:38 PM  
Finally!  A jury of my peers.  We Americans who are about to die salute you globalists!

www.teddunlap.net
 
2013-04-26 01:13:59 PM  

nocturnal001: make a mistake


Yea. You "mistakenly" assumed they were illegals because you only skimmed the article that included no such phrasing but managed to miss the first sentence that said exactly the opposite.

Yea.... a totally honest and reasonable "mistake"...

nocturnal001: [stuff meant to sound compelling]


So, basically, you choose to be ignorant despite your own experience?

I don't really know what right or left has to do with this, though. The fundamental problem isn't your politics, it's that you decided to make a fundamentally wrong assumption based on personal bias despite the first farking line of the damn article saying exactly the opposite of what you wanted to believe and then got pissy with OTHER people when you got called on it.

As for "generalizing" about you flyovers, I'll stop doing it when you stop proving so consistently that the generalities are generally correct.
 
2013-04-26 02:03:26 PM  

skozlaw: nocturnal001: make a mistake

Yea. You "mistakenly" assumed they were illegals because you only skimmed the article that included no such phrasing but managed to miss the first sentence that said exactly the opposite.

Yea.... a totally honest and reasonable "mistake"...

nocturnal001: [stuff meant to sound compelling]

So, basically, you choose to be ignorant despite your own experience?

I don't really know what right or left has to do with this, though. The fundamental problem isn't your politics, it's that you decided to make a fundamentally wrong assumption based on personal bias despite the first farking line of the damn article saying exactly the opposite of what you wanted to believe and then got pissy with OTHER people when you got called on it.

As for "generalizing" about you flyovers, I'll stop doing it when you stop proving so consistently that the generalities are generally correct.


I would like to present this post to the Fark review board as the definition of "irony".

You have a guy here who is screaming about "those" awful people who make "assumptions" based on their "bias" instead of looking at the facts and making an informed decision.  After making those statements he proceeds to do the exact same thing that he just whined about other people doing.

Then, when his blanket attacks are shown to be demonstrably wrong, proceeds to backpeddle and try to make some other broad point.  So, tell me Mr. PA. Have you ever been to the mid-west? Have you even left PA at some point?  Your ignorance about such a large region composed of a huge variety of cultures/states/cities is very telling.

And no you stupid fark, I didn't "get pissy with OTHER people when they called me out on it", I got pissy when that dickhead called me retarded for misreading non-citizen and assuming "illegal" as that is what 95% of all of any discussions about "non-citizens" is really about.

Whine whine, obviously if anyone disagrees with me they are some sort of xenophobe or racist, I can't argue like a big boy so I resort to name calling. Pathetic.  So go on, continue to think that I have some sort of nefarious anti-illegal agenda if that makes you feel better.
 
2013-04-26 04:25:56 PM  

nocturnal001: I got pissy when that dickhead called me retarded


farking retard can't take a joke

you'll get over it

cry more
 
2013-04-26 04:55:42 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: nocturnal001: I got pissy when that dickhead called me retarded

farking retard can't take a joke

you'll get over it

cry more


Yawn, so now it was just a joke?  Ahh, the favorite retreat of a coward when called out on something "but but it was just a joke I swear".

Do people still use "cry more" as an insult?
 
2013-04-26 05:46:03 PM  

GregInIndy: What's the problem?

The problem is that someone who immigrated here a month ago and has little to no background on American laws, culture, or customs is hardly a "peer" of the defendant in any way.  I'd contend that a conviction by any such jury would be questionable.  You're talking about a panel of people that're asked to make decisions that have significant, often huge impacts on individuals' lives.  I think the least that could be asked is that they be fellow citizens of the person on trial.


I'm pretty sure that people without preconceptions about the law are exactly what the justice system desires. Culture and customs  are not supposed to enter into jury verdicts.

A truly impartial jury would be selected from another planet.
 
2013-04-26 06:41:57 PM  

jso2897: Nobody WANTS to serve on a jury. And I don't think there is any way to COMPEL a non-citizen to do so. So this will effect about five people. Maybe.


Speak for yourself. I'm almost 30, born in the US, and have never been called for jury duty...but I wish they would call...
 
2013-04-26 07:07:30 PM  

Fromageball: jso2897: Nobody WANTS to serve on a jury. And I don't think there is any way to COMPEL a non-citizen to do so. So this will effect about five people. Maybe.

Speak for yourself. I'm almost 30, born in the US, and have never been called for jury duty...but I wish they would call...


You can volunteer for jury duty,  just call your counties superior court jury service and ask to be put on the list they'll be happy to hear from you.

/My wife just got out of jury duty this week because she's not a US citizen.
 
2013-04-26 09:08:13 PM  

borg: Notabunny: Meh. One of my friends is an illegal immigrant. He's 50yo, and he was brought here by his parents when he was 3. He served in the Army, he has his own business, he owns two houses, and he put his kids through college. I think the US could survive his serving on a jury.

I think you're lying because he would have taken care of it in 1986 either that or he's really stupid.


This
 
2013-04-27 12:27:15 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: borg: Notabunny: Meh. One of my friends is an illegal immigrant. He's 50yo, and he was brought here by his parents when he was 3. He served in the Army, he has his own business, he owns two houses, and he put his kids through college. I think the US could survive his serving on a jury.

I think you're lying because he would have taken care of it in 1986 either that or he's really stupid.

This


That ↓

Notabunny: borg: Notabunny: Meh. One of my friends is an illegal immigrant. He's 50yo, and he was brought here by his parents when he was 3. He served in the Army, he has his own business, he owns two houses, and he put his kids through college. I think the US could survive his serving on a jury.

I think you're lying because he would have taken care of it in 1986 either that or he's really stupid.

It must be very frustrating for you that not everybody leads their lives the way you assume they should

 
2013-04-27 12:26:19 PM  

jso2897: Nobody WANTS to serve on a jury. And I don't think there is any way to COMPEL a non-citizen to do so. So this will effect about five people. Maybe.


Fines, prison, etc? You know, the same as US citizens. And do you think someone wants "ignored jury summons" to be on their file the next time they talk to INS about renewing or changing their status? They likely have more incentive than US citizens to serve.


I don't get people's issues at this.
Most citizens don't want to serve on juries and would benefit from widening the pool. Most immigrants will know as much about the law as some random guy off the street. It doesn't remove incentive to become a citizen by making it less special, it shifts a burden to non-citizens, decreasing the penalties for becoming a citizen. It actually makes citizenship better in comparison to green card.
There is a rigorous jury selection process already in place that would almost certainly get rid of anyone just off the boat or with other issues in respect to the case.
I can see restricting it from visa holders, but there is certainly no reason to eliminate green card holders.
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report