No offense, but this is completely untrue. The jury selection process is meant to eliminate biases, which is why certain trials, like the Rodney King cop trials, were so heavily criticized- their juries were all white and wealthy suburbanites who sympathized heavily with the police. Just look at the questions you're asked during the Voir Dire- they question all your biases relevant to the case.
the jury selection process is meant to eliminate biases or conflicts of interest, but the point of a jury is that you are to be judged by your peers and that you are not judged by simply one person, the logic is that either party has to convince one more than one person
the rodney king trial were criticized but legally speaking there is nothing that could be done about it because it was the cops under trial not rodney king and to show that there was something illegal you would have to show that certain groups were excluded from the jury selection process
In cases like the aforementioned, there is corruption at work and people get through, but the system, in intention, is meant to prevent that. However, seeing as the system does not prevent that, and actually discriminates against people of color, poor people, etc, we have yet another reason to include immigrants as a way to counter that empirical bias.
there is no logical reason to think that immigrants are free of bias against people of color or poor people, that is something that you are making up and shows what a delusional person you are
Secondly, synopticism is an inherent part of the jury. Diversity of opinion is part of both the judge system (as in the case of the Supreme Court, where there is an odd number of judges for that very reason,) or in jury pools, which is why lawyers are allowed to argue over the selection of jurors. The primary goal of the jury is to render an impartial verdict- see the Impartiality clause of the 6th Amendment in the Constitution.
synopticism would include knowledge of american culture and tradition, so that concept would exclude immigrants from the process
and i think this is why you have to separate what the purpose of a jury is and what the purpose of jury selection is because you are conflating the two
the purpose of the jury selection is two eliminate obvious conflicts and biases, but the purpose of the jury is to judged by your peers, so by definition immigrants would have to be excluded because they lack knowledge of american culture and tradition and they are not your peers
Again, not true. I edited my earlier post to include this info, but I guess I wasn't fast enough. You can get an ID with a temporary residence card, after you've applied for one from the government, but the temporary residence card means you're not counted as a lawful immigant, just as a visitor. The article specifically states that only lawful immigrants will be chosen. In order to be a lawful immigrant and apply for a DMV ID of any kind, you need at least a Green Card, meaning you've been here for several years already (the minimum appears to be 6-7, since you can apply after living here for 5 years, but is around 10 for most actual cases) and are probably on the citizenship path... even in California. See here: "An applicant who is an immigrant to the U.S. may provide a U.S. citizen naturalization or citizenship document, or a Permanent Resident Card."
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...cts/ffdl32.htm
you dont know what you are talking about, you have it backwards, you need a green card to come into the united states in the first place, you do not get a green card after several years, you get it when you come in
for example if i marry a foreign chick, i apply for a green card for her, the moment she gets here she has a green card already, if she doesnt have a green card, she cant get into the country, so the minute she steps off the plane she can go to the dmv and get a license and under this proposal she can be a juror the next day
a temporary residence card would not exclude you from being a lawful immigrant, its the opposite, temporary workers are lawful immigrants, if you are here legally you are entitled to a license and that includes guest workers and h1b workers, so this proposal would have temporary workers IT workers from india and farm labor from mexico on jury duty
and BTW this is the whole quote from the dmv site
If the applicant was born in the U.S., he/she may provide a U.S. birth certificate or passport. An applicant who is an immigrant to the U.S. may provide a U.S. citizen naturalization or citizenship document, or a Permanent Resident Card. Applicants who are non-immigrants, but are authorized to be in the U.S. may present a Temporary Resident Identification card or other temporary resident documentation.
Sure, but not a reason big enough to warrant disqualification of immigrants in general. Again, this is what the jury selection process is for. Lawyers weed out people who they don't think will be able to deal with the case in a competant manner. Secondly, like I said before, all immigrants who get selected to report will have Green Cards already, which means most will be on the citizenship path, which means they will have started learning about the constitution, since it's part of the citizenship tests. If you want to discriminate based on who knows the law and who doesn't, that's fine, but it's not currently a requirement to know any specific degree of law, nor would such an imaginary requirement disqualify immigrants as a whole. The vast majority of law-learning with respect to a jury happens during the case, no matter who's on the jury.
i wasnt discriminating against those who know the law or not, i'm discriminating against non citizens for cultural reasons
In fact, since the system already discriminates against minorities, they'd be harsher on immigrants for that same reason, so ironically, your point has even less force as a result.
well since you bring up race and discrimination, lets talk about how race and discrimination plays out in places like india and mexico, what logical reason do you have to think that a person from mexico or india would discriminate less against african americans? why would a person that comes from a culture with a caste system be a better juror? why would a person from a culture like mexico that puts whites at the top and native americans in the bottom be a better juror?
and lets be real about what's going on, the proposal is being put out by mexican american legislators to increase mexican influence in the us, that is all thats going on here, and liberal are lapping it up because in their minds only white people can be racist, apparently mexicans, chinese and indians cant be racist
this is just another corny attempt to turn california from a white power structure to a mexican power structure, any black person that gets down with this because the believe "minorities" are less racist is retarded
this is another example of why black people need to separate ourselves from liberals
1. The problem of the bias of the jury in the courtroom, which can always be improved and fine-tuned further, which is less a problem that needs solving than a general improvement that can be made at no cost.
this is absolute complete bullshyt, there is no logical reason to think that adding immigrants would create less bias against minorities
and there is every reason to think that immigrants are not familiar with fundamental america concepts like freedom of speech, civil rights, and separation of church and state
and adding immigrants to the jury pool would simply introduce biases and beliefs from foreign sources
2. The proven bias of the jury system against minorities of all kinds, which is a real problem as it runs against the purpose of the jury and impairs proper criminal justice.
immigrants are just as racist as white people, you're an idiot if you believe otherwise
@ thinking random, illiterate, ignorant immigrants will be sought out by lawyers.
