SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.
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.
The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat - Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced - voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.
Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.
Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.
"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."
Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.
A 2007 survey by the Center for Jury Studies said 20 percent of courts across the country reported a failure to respond or failure to appear rate of 15 percent or higher. The center is run by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based nonprofit dedicated to improving court systems.
It's not clear, however, if that rate translates to a shortage of jurors in California.
Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.
"This isn't about affording someone who would come in as a juror something," Perez said. "But rather understanding that the importance of the jury selection process of affording justice to the person in that courtroom."
An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.
In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.
The judicial branch has not taken a position on AB 1401.
I wonder if a "Non Citizen” would have the knowledge necessary to cast a vote based on understanding of the law and the customs of your country.
ReplyDeleteLet me offer a possible case for your consideration.
I believe I am reasonably proficient in American history and politics. I could never be empanelled in the prospective trial of the Boston man accused of the Marathon outrage.
I hear that although there is no Death Penalty in the state; the accused is likely to face the death penalty by charging him under a statute which circumvents the state law.
Any comments please? I personally believe that the extreme penalty is justified but not if the State has to go outside its own jurisdiction to achieve the result. Surely this is not a case to be dealt with under Federal Law?
Cheers from Aussie
This bill does sound like a bad idea to me. A jury of my peers, to me, means other American citizens who actually have a stake in this country. I agree with the Republican guy that this seems like a misguided idea.
ReplyDeleteTo your point Kingston, I doubt many people who serve on juries have an in depth understanding of the law before they hear a case. From what I have seen, the jury is given instructions on what they are and aren't supposed to consider and under what parameters a person can be convicted. Regardless, I believe that a jury of peers means citizens.
As for the death penalty for the bomber, I have some agreement with you in principle. However, it seems the bombers went outside of state jurisdiction to buy materials for the bombs. If that's true, why hold them just to the laws of the state the crime was committed in?
Max,
DeletePlease take a seat since this is the second time Hell has frozen over. I too believe that only citizens should be allowed to serve on jury's and I (believe it or not) am against capital punishment. However, this is a Federal case and if the evidence is as we have seen in the media, give the creep a trial by his peers, and if found guilty, send him to Timothy McVeigh's table for a judgement by God.
I also agree with your pier argument Max. Anything else would be illogical. Then again most things in California are beyond my comprehension.
DeleteSorry about mispelling peer.
DeletePerhaps hell could be frozen for good if everyone examined every issue by itself. There's a lot more we agree on then our conversations here would suggest.
DeleteWow, guys, I feel a chill. All four of you agree. The temperature at the shores of the river Styx must have dropped like a rock :-)!
DeleteI agree. Jury members should be U. S. citizens.
Jean
However, this is a Federal case and .....
ReplyDeleteGottaloveit.... why do you feel that this is a federal case? What elements take this case out of the state hands and place it in federal jurisdiction?
I have big reservations about the long arm of the federal government when it decides to stick its hands in business of the state. The use and twisting of the word 'Terrorist' ... the creative ways the commerce law is used..... and the overwhelming use of force and indifference paid to fundamental rights of a citizen....
TS, greetings. May this post find you well.
DeleteTo me, the fact that the older bother crossed state lines to buy fireworks to make his bombs is satisfactory enough to me. According to the stories I read, the retailer of the fireworks said there wouldn't have been enough explosive in the kits to do the job. Nonetheless, he crossed state lines to procure his materials. that's good enough for me.
To your second and more philosophical statement there, there has been no push back from either party and more disturbingly, there has been no real push back from the people regarding our loss of freedoms since 9/11 that have been done in the name of "protecting the homeland". I don't like it either and it is going to bite us. But, I have a hard time railing against the machine when it seems to matter so little to so many. It doesn't even come up in campaign issues when we are still obsessed with fucking tax cuts. This lack of respect for freedom is truly bi partisan and the majority of laws were created by Republicans though they have been further enhanced by Obama.
When you look at the videos from the manhunt, it truly disturbs me that our police forces have become so militarized. But, that's the new world we live in.
TheScott,
DeleteTo me that FBI interviewed this guy some years ago is enough to make it a federal case IMHO.
"It doesn't even come up in campaign issues when we are still obsessed with fucking tax cuts. "
ReplyDeleteOh, it does... we just don't get to hear much about it. How and why people like Ron Paul and others who do talk about these issues are not heard is the problem. People don't push back against the machine because they feel powerless on one hand and their is another group, who I fear greatly, willingly embrace the government as their saviour...
To your reasoning that the purchase across state lines provides reason for federal involvement.... name one thing in your life that does not have a component that comes from somewhere else and to that end all of the 'Agenda' folks would say that the fact that these people and their knowledge came from a different country requires UN intervention..... very slimmy slope my friend. Its like the feds intervention in California raw milk because someone from out of state 'might' consume it.... Where does it end.
Gotta.... My wife is from the UK and as such went through the US Immigration process. That process involved the FBI.... does that mean that the FBI can intervene because she is involved in a traffic accident or simple assault? I was once in the military and interviewed for the White House Communications Agency. That interview was in part a function of the FBI and secret service.... do they have unlimited access to me?
If we make the slippery slope argument, that can be taken to an absurd extreme as well and we can say why have any rules at all then? Respectfully, your second para portrays some straw man logic, logic that I would not use in my argument. We have a pretty well established precedent in this country of prosecuting people at the federal level when they cross state lines as part of carrying out their crimes. It's not a federal crime, IMO, if they buy a pressure cooker locally that was made somewhere else. Dragging the whipping boy of the UN into this or raw milk is a little extreme.
DeleteI will concede that I am not a huge fan of our terrorism laws and I recently read an interesting article that asked why a pressure cooker that killed a few people is a WMD but a bushmaster that is used to kill 15 is not. I'm not asking that question here, but it does serve a useful purpose to this discussion. Like it or not, we have chosen to makes acts of terrorism a special case situation that allows for federal intervention. Exploding a pressure cooker bomb is an act of terrorism, or at the least, the initial information available portrays a picture that these two assholes meant to carry out an act of terrorism. Their gripe here does not seem to be outrage against a local marathon and instead was meant to be a big message against the entire country. They wanted that attention, and now they have it.
As a final thought, the premise of embracing a daddy government as savior is something that has been taken to an extreme. I don't want the government to wipe my ass. By the same token, however, I don't want to participate in a market place where there are no rules and every transaction of every day is a let the buyer beware encounter. reasonable rules of safety and accountability that are enforced by the government give me freedom. I can go to a grocery store and have a reasonable belief that the majority of food I buy will be safe to eat. I don't draw a link between that food safety and invading Iraq.
"If we make the slippery slope argument, that can be taken to an absurd extreme as well and we can say why have any rules at all then? "
DeleteI didn't say no rules at all. These two yahoos exploded a device in a state... That state has laws about exploding things.. It has laws about making bombs and it has law about killing people.... I see no need for the federal government to supersede the power and jurisdiction of the individual state.... It is a federal power grab plan and simple. I certainly don't advocate for a lawless society but the Federal government is doing end-runs on any form of state authority. Limited federal government has a vital function but using creative interpretations of the 'commerce law' to supersede a state function is, IMHO, a terrifying consolidation of police powers. You seem to think that the raw milk issue is nothing of importance but it is the very same overreach in both cases. I don't draw a link between food safety and Iraq either but I do see a connection between food safety and a consolidated and ill-run FDA that panders heavily to both big Pharma and Agra and while various state health departments might do the same, it is unlikely that all 50 states would bend to the same powers of persuasion as the 'professionals' in Washington
That's just it TS, of course no one outright says "No Rules at All". But, they then use endless examples of evil government intervention and bang that drum over and over and over. What conclusion are people supposed to take away from that? Have we not heard Reagan's axiom beaten to death that government IS the problem? I don't see how you can logically complain about every aspect of government and still maintain you are not for a lawless society where everyone is on their own.
DeleteBe that as it may, I get your point on this and believe it or not, I actually agree with your point philosophically. Where I disagree with you is in calling this an over reach under the current rules. After 9/11, this country flipped the fuck out and begged W Bush and Dick Cheney to be our daddy and take some of our freedoms in the name of safety. I damn the entirety of the Democrats for signing off on it, but it did not come from them. The very same people who complained that government IS the problem are the ones who have helped create our paramilitary police forces. Respectfully, I believe your entire argument here is tied to your philosophical belief rather then the world as it actually is. I don't like the terrorism laws either, but, until I see a genuine majority of people push back on it, I'm not going to blame the government for doing what the people told them to do after 9/11. And again, this was not an attack with a local focus by the perps. It was meant to be a terror act and reports suggest Boston was not their only target. I'll leave it at that.
To your point about the FDA being owned by big pharma and big agra, I really can't argue. Does that mean the concept is wrong? I don't think so, but that's the logic today. If corruption is found, we should kill the agency rather then close the door of influence open to corrupting assholes who don't give a shit about the safety of their products. The smarter people, amongst conservative types, seem to have a view that since they are smart enough to never get taken advantage of, the government is nothing but a nuisance that is standing in the way of them making the most out of life. Therefore, in order for them to have that last bit of freedom they are missing, we should repeal 90% of all rules and let the stupid be fleeced until they learn better or get Darwined out of the game.
“That's just it TS, of course no one outright says "No Rules at All". But, they then use endless examples of evil government intervention and bang that drum over and over and over. What conclusion are people supposed to take away from that?”
DeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how political dogma can color the thought process of an otherwise presumably level headed individual. I think I was clear in stating that Connecticut had all the rules/laws necessary to deal with making, exploding and murdering. Nothing remotely indicating anarchy in that statement unless of course your overriding desire for an all powerful central government makes distributed government an equilateral to lawlessness. For me and many others the second ‘s’ in the word States does now and always has had a plural connotation. By the way, talking about the endless drum banging drone, it wouldn’t be off base at all for people who don’t share your conviction of a strong central government as hearing a group of socialists’ hell bent on the ultimate destination of a borderless one world government.... that would just be a conspiracy theory though...... Then again, not entertaining the possibility of a conspiracy is without a doubt just as mad as believing everything is one.
You are correct. The war in Iraq and milk in California have nothing in nothing to do with each other.... except for a federal policy that infects every action it takes.... presumption and pre-emption, legal or not. If you believe that the Feds have the right to intervene in a states right to produce milk as it sees fit because someone from another state might buy it and take it home even though that state deems it health for its own people, has the right to take control of a ‘terrorist event’ before anyone knows who or why they did what they even though the definition of a terrorist act had not been met(at the time), then you must be alright with your phone being tapped because you ‘might’ do something illegal in the future and you should be fine with flattening Iraq before it is capable of doing anything.
Your belief that 911 freaked everyone out is, IMHO misguided. The people of America, except for the anger of an attack on US soil, responded exactly as the US government wanted them to.... Sure there was a serious breach of US security but the response to 911 gave the government the ability to enact laws that it has long sought in its continual struggle to wrest power away from the people and the States. Thats not conspiracy, thats history. Remember telecommunications snooping and wiretaps, detaining subjects for questioning, etc have been tools of the fed for a long time before 911 but laws actually requiring probable cause, warrants and personal privacy stood in their way. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 really got the ball rolling. Also remember the Carnivore program that started under Clinton and ran, (no doubt until a better system was in place) until 2005. Interestingly enough, carnivore was closed down, ostensibly because of public outrage.... again that was well after 911. People know very little of what they have given away... hell most of the people who voted for it don’t have a clue....
DeleteAs far as the various departments under the auspices of the Executive branch, unfortunately the only way to deal with a president that refused the will of congress is to defund his little pet project and because congress can’t use a budget scalpel.... Again, the model of this country is one of 50 individual states and not 50 regional federal administrative districts and while it is true that no state law could usurp federal law... the federal government was never meant to govern every aspect of every life. Much changed after the rather dubious enactment of the 17th amendment... so much so, I wonder why we have two houses in the legislator and why we really need 535 elected congresspersons.... perhaps all we need is a gang of 20 and a President who openly does everything in his power to defy them... Push back.... we just witness the most egregious use of the states police power in effectively declaring Marshall law... I have no doubt that 80 of the population would put their neck on the chopping block for their national party affiliation...
Thanks for the response, there is a lot of very thoughtful stuff there. There is also a lot to chew on that could lead off into a lot of weeds. Since we strayed into the bombing incident, I'll try to focus on that first. Whether we say that people freaked out after 9/11 or say that they acted exactly as planned is a matter of semantics. We are saying pretty much the same thing. Post 9/11, the government went a rampage granting itself powers of control over the people and by and large, the people were willing to give it to them. As the rules stand right now, an act of murder committed as terrorism is punishable by federal laws that trump local laws. Whether that is philosophically acceptable is a separate issue. Regardless, it's not federal overreach under CURRENT laws, laws that changed after 9/11. Without that qualifier, I'm still not that bothered (in principle) by saying that it is a more serious crime to cross several state lines to carry out your acts. The real problem though is that we can then introduce the slippery slope argument and say that if we do something that makes common sense here, eventually we slide helplessly in tyranny.
ReplyDeleteBut, I let my point stand about banging the drum. Clearly, you are not an anarchist. That said, if you find fault with nearly every level of government, it's hard to discern what you actually approve of. As for me, I neither favor the Daddy state nor the anarchy of every person for themselves in the free market. When it comes to food safety, I don't have a significant problem with establishing minimum levels of safety and then letting locals add anything above that. But, we can go into the weeds here really quickly and likely find at least one thing wrong with every single federal law on the books. Once that one thing is found, it becomes the basis, for some, to say we must neuter the government to point it can't function. I don't take that as your view, but I'm making the same rhetorical argument that you are making of me, which is to say that at an extreme, my beliefs lead to government control of everything. Such is our entire political process of today. There is much room in the middle to find workable solutions to present day problems, but we are not allowed, currently, to elect moderate candidates who force extreme left or right to accept compromise.
Max I get your point that the current laws allow for the fed to inject themselves in crimes that are deemed 'terrorism'. My point is that the fed took charge of the investigation before 'terrorism', as established by federal definition, had been met.... Seems to me that, from a lot of antidotial information, they were already involved before the bombs went off.. but such is the ability of the federal government to take charge of just about anything they desire... Does it worry me... yes, a lot....
ReplyDeleteThe other day when the women in Ohio were found. Granted, at some point the FBI had become involved as this was possible a murder/abduction case that crossed state lines but... alas... the women, then girls, never left the state.. h3ll they never left the town... but how gave the opening press conference about the cases' resolution.... The FBI... Clearly not their jurisdiction... clearly not terrorism... but clearly an overreach of federal involvement. It can be rationalized in a whole host of ways but at the end of the day, the minute the 911 call placed them at an address not 3 miles from their home, that was the end of the federal investigation and other than clearing up paperwork, they were no longer involved... Not in my states rights, constitutional world anyway.
"When it comes to food safety, I don't have a significant problem with establishing minimum levels of safety and then letting locals add anything above that. But,"
The problem is, the federal government leaves no room for 'locals adding anything'. The use, or should I say, the misuse of the commerce law allows states no wiggle room for anything... unless the fed chooses to ignore it. With the extremely liberal interpretation of both the Commerce clause and the General welfare aberrations... "powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people." makes states nothing more than federal administrative districts. And yes, little infringements are important because they always lead to larger and larger power grabs...
Unfortunately, for the most part,it is the left that push a strong federal to achieve their ends... some of them quite ominous, and for that reason I do not side with the left. The thought is their but the end result is, as it always has been in history, to much centralized power will always lead to a bad outcome for the people....and unfortunately the left plays into the hands of a very powerful right that want a centralized government for its own purposes... its just not advertised...
Where I differ from you TS is that I'm willing to accept the outcome of genuine compromise. The last sentence of your second to last para, "And yes, little infringements are important because they always lead to larger and larger power grabs..."
DeleteThis is what I get frustrated with. Like you said, you personally are not calling for no rules, but the word "always" turns your words in a rigid dogma. Undoubtedly, your view is nuanced, as is mine. Without compromise, however, it becomes a dogma that paralyzes government rather then keeps it honest.
I don't believe the right "wants" a centralized government and more then I believe the left does. At the moment, however, both parties have become a simple conduit for those with money to write the rules to benefit themselves. This is a key distinction. While folks such as yourself desire less government, the folks who back the candidates of the right simply want less oversight, less competition and less ability for those wronged by their actions to sue them. Some small business men no doubt share your philosophical passion, but the money guys could care less. Increasingly, the left is becoming the same way.
Going back to your sentence, I see compromise as the only solution that has kept our nation together for so long. I don't share your perpetual doom that every government action will lead to tyranny. But without compromise, your words become this rigid dogma that eventually becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If there is comprise, the folks who have this fatalistic view provide a needed tension. Without compromise, they simply become levers for monied interests to manipulate. Compromise, IMO, is what keeps a voice for the average person. What's your solution if you don't believe there should be no rules but don't believe the government has any good rules at the moment?
Max, I am sorry for the lengthy delay in this response... I have had it for some time but got sidetracked with a ‘discussion’ with William and as you can probably tell Max, brevity is not my strong suite and subjects like this do not help.
DeleteI am open to compromise, but there are some covenants which, once scuppered, destroy any original intent. I do have contradictions in my thought process that constantly taunt me but for the most part, with respect to government, my feeling is that less is more and distributed is essential. My contradictions lead me astray because; by nature I like to think that I am a caring person but as with a parent, how to dispense that care is the big question when your goal is to raise an independent individual. Too little assistance and you kill hope and too much and you kill motivation.
When I speak of right and left, it is with reference to the gravity that pulls people away from centre. Every subject of importance has people at the passionate fringe... capitalism, fascism, federalism, socialism, rights for this and that. Few in numbers but vocal and determined they continually work to radicalize the conversation. A for instance would be the modern women’s lib movement. Its core is a very radical element... those who write things like the feminist manifesto and the vagina monologs and advocate for the reduction of the male population to 10% of the world and only for genetic diversity. Most women just want to be treated with respect but they are driven by a core message. So, yes, the left is hell bent on centralized government. It is the only way to administer tax and control uniformly and it is inevitably only a weight point in the broader goal of an all inclusive borderless, world government. With that in mind, any time power is removed from the states by enlightened interpretation of the constitution, I see the relentless march to a singular all powerful overlord. If you use your imagination, you can see the power and authority of the United Nations as not much less with respect to nations as the US federal government to states before the Civil War. The UN takes every opportunity to solidify it power and control over nation states and it can only happen with the abrogation of sovereignty by those states. And IMHO, you are wrong if you do not think that the certain elements of the right isn’t very happy with power to wage war, enforce ‘law’, and enable corporate power from one central location. Staunch federalists and theologians care little for ‘rights’ and seek the ultimate top down authority.
Agreed.. Compromise is essential to a harmonious relationship. We however see compromise from two fairly opposite perspectives. Firstly I think you can agree that on just about every issue, the US is fundamentally split; meaning there are no clear majorities, mandates or imperatives that guide us. Mostly when someone says that the ‘majority’ want it, are they speaking of, at best, a very slim majority. The left is always pushing bigger social programs. That is what they do. Some out of genuine concern and others the continual drive to force wealth distribution regardless of need. So when the left and the right come together to ‘compromise’ the results are NEVER zero or negative sum for the tax payer. The left always want funds and the right do not want to tax them...... The compromise?!..... a sum less than asked for but not zero and NEVER downsized. Compromise in that fashion has lead to a huge national debt and the compromise, at least at the federal level never involves stopping or de-funding projects... always more.....From my perspective... that is not compromise... that is being railroaded by an ideology that always wants to play Robin Hood and does it with little forethought, planning or efficiency. I give you Obamacare as its latest compassionate boondoggle.
“What's your solution if you don't believe there should be no rules but don't believe the government has any good rules at the moment?”
DeleteWhen you speak of government and of rule... you are mentally focused on the federal government. Your thought process does not involve state and local governments, at least not in the areas of responsibility that I do. This is where you continually feel that I and many on the right are anti government. The federal government IMHO serves some very limited functions and should never intrude in social order other than to enforce basic constitutional concepts. Keeping in mind that the United States was and indeed should still be an experiment of relatively autonomous communities, the country was never meant to be homogeneous to the point where the federal told us what social behaviours would be acceptable from afar. I understand the Sam Crow mentality that liberals have with states’ rights but they must also stop and re-evaluate their stance. We have seen terrible policies initiated at the national level with little or no way to change them. States are currently trying to dismantle the federal ‘war on drugs’ which has been arguably the worst piece of legislation on the poor and black communities post civil rights act. Were it not for the fight of state legislators, a federally imposed ‘Defence of Marriage Act’ would have gained traction. The 17th amendment has taken so much from our country... a sledgehammer of a solution to fix a tack hammer problem but an opportunity for progressives and federalist alike to finally stripe states of any representation at the national level. We have learned much in both success and failure of federal policy and must use that knowledge to move past the yoke Lincoln put around the neck of this country by exerting federal authority with unadulterated federal power.
It has been said many times that central planning always gets it wrong and with rare exception success has come at more cost in time and resource than locally applied solutions. With social care, with education, with health care the bureaucratic boondoggles are endless. Beyond defence and foreign treaties the federal government has the responsibility to keep the constitution relevant. Most of our laws seem to be written around rights for ‘people’, ‘religion’ and ‘life’. Should congress actually spend some quality time defining by way of amendment those 3 words with clarity probably 50% of all state and federal laws could disappear. Instead of turning out 2000 pages with 200 riders... just focus on the real business of the federal government and write in stone with an amendment what these words mean. Of course no one wants to do that. Define ‘Life’, what a hornets’ nest that would be but in doing the hard yards, there would be no question about what is considered right or wrong under our constitution. Oh yes and learn to understand the difference between the words Provide and Promote....
Within those confines states should have a free hand at creating the environments they chose to attract the people that want to live there and businesses that want to operate there. To me the monogamy of the US and its lack of tradition is the most harmful thing that has happened to it. The north, the east , the south... they all had their own charm and personality that prompted creativity and competition. Within the business world you see it all the time... small companies competing with each other move face and are very innovative. As they get big however the bureaucracy and levels of decision making slow them down and make them much less competitive and less pleasurable to work for.
I suppose I have rambled enough... no doubt I have skipped some points I intended to make and blathered on about others