The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service

B. Kalt
{"title":"The Exclusion of Felons from Jury Service","authors":"B. Kalt","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.420840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men. The parallel issue of felon disenfranchisement has drawn considerable scholarly attention, despite its lower, declining, and less racially charged numbers. The racial composition of juries has been widely discussed in the literature as well. By contrast, felon jury service has been almost entirely ignored, despite a mass of legislation and appellate litigation, and despite glaring racial disparities. One can hardly argue that the biggest problem with the American legal system is that our juries do not have enough felons on them. Nevertheless, the question of whether and when felons (principally \"ex-felons\") should serve as jurors involves several larger issues. This article surveys the current law of felon exclusion and surveys its history. It then surveys and proposes constitutional arguments for and against felon exclusion, and concludes that it is constitutional either to exclude felons from juries, as most jurisdictions do, or to include them, as others do. While this result is fairly clear from current doctrine, it exposes flaws and ambiguities in that doctrine. It also undermines the principal justifications for felon exclusion (protecting the probity of the jury, and eliminating inherently biased jurors). Because both exclusion and inclusion are legal, the remainder of the article considers policy arguments for and against felon exclusion: first, the nature of the jury, and whether felon exclusion is compatible with it; next, a similar analysis regarding the treatment of felons; and finally other, general policy arguments. The discussion concludes with a recommendation that while some felon exclusion may be appropriate, it should be carefully considered and should not be based on inflexible generalizations about crimes, criminals, and trials. Instead, felons who are worthy should have a chance to contend as individuals for a seat on a jury, under the same constraints as everyone else.","PeriodicalId":80193,"journal":{"name":"The American University law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"49","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American University law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.420840","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

Abstract

The lifetime exclusion of felons from jury service is the majority rule in the U.S., used in thirty one states and in federal courts. The result is that over 6% of the adult population is excluded, including about 30% of black men. The parallel issue of felon disenfranchisement has drawn considerable scholarly attention, despite its lower, declining, and less racially charged numbers. The racial composition of juries has been widely discussed in the literature as well. By contrast, felon jury service has been almost entirely ignored, despite a mass of legislation and appellate litigation, and despite glaring racial disparities. One can hardly argue that the biggest problem with the American legal system is that our juries do not have enough felons on them. Nevertheless, the question of whether and when felons (principally "ex-felons") should serve as jurors involves several larger issues. This article surveys the current law of felon exclusion and surveys its history. It then surveys and proposes constitutional arguments for and against felon exclusion, and concludes that it is constitutional either to exclude felons from juries, as most jurisdictions do, or to include them, as others do. While this result is fairly clear from current doctrine, it exposes flaws and ambiguities in that doctrine. It also undermines the principal justifications for felon exclusion (protecting the probity of the jury, and eliminating inherently biased jurors). Because both exclusion and inclusion are legal, the remainder of the article considers policy arguments for and against felon exclusion: first, the nature of the jury, and whether felon exclusion is compatible with it; next, a similar analysis regarding the treatment of felons; and finally other, general policy arguments. The discussion concludes with a recommendation that while some felon exclusion may be appropriate, it should be carefully considered and should not be based on inflexible generalizations about crimes, criminals, and trials. Instead, felons who are worthy should have a chance to contend as individuals for a seat on a jury, under the same constraints as everyone else.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将重罪犯排除在陪审团之外
终身不让重罪犯担任陪审员是美国的多数原则,在31个州和联邦法院使用。结果是超过6%的成年人被排除在外,其中包括大约30%的黑人男性。与此同时,重罪犯被剥夺公民权的问题也引起了相当大的学术关注,尽管其数量较低、不断下降,而且种族歧视也较少。陪审团的种族构成也在文献中被广泛讨论。相比之下,尽管有大量的立法和上诉诉讼,尽管存在明显的种族差异,但重罪犯陪审团服务几乎完全被忽视。很难否认,美国法律体系的最大问题是我们的陪审团没有足够的重罪犯。然而,重罪犯(主要是“前重罪犯”)是否应该担任陪审员以及何时担任陪审员的问题涉及几个更大的问题。本文考察了我国现行的重刑犯排除法及其历史沿革。然后调查并提出支持和反对排除重罪犯的宪法论据,并得出结论,要么像大多数司法管辖区那样将重罪犯排除在陪审团之外,要么像其他司法管辖区那样将他们纳入陪审团,这是符合宪法的。虽然这一结果从目前的学说来看是相当清楚的,但它暴露了该学说的缺陷和模糊性。这也削弱了排除重刑犯的主要理由(保护陪审团的正直,消除固有偏见的陪审员)。由于排除和纳入都是合法的,本文的其余部分将考虑支持和反对排除重刑犯的政策论点:首先,陪审团的性质,以及排除重刑犯是否与之相容;接下来,对重罪犯的待遇进行类似的分析;最后是其他一般性的政策论点。讨论最后提出了一项建议,即尽管排除一些重罪犯可能是适当的,但应仔细考虑,不应基于对罪行、罪犯和审判的刻板概括。相反,有价值的重罪犯应该有机会以个人身份争取陪审团席位,在与其他人相同的约束下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CHAPTER 2. Research Universities: Overextended, Underfocused; Overstressed, Underfunded The American University National Treasure or Endangered Species? CHAPTER 7. Prospect for the Social Sciences in the Land Grant University The American University: Dilemmas and Directions Frontmatter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1