CA: Sex Offenders Demand Right To Serve On Juries
A judge said Wednesday she is inclined to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Superior Court and state Attorney General Xavier Becerra in which five registered sex offenders say they and people like them are being unconstitutionally barred from serving as jurors.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Scheper, saying there are “novel issues the court is being asked to consider,” took the case brought by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws under submission. She said she may have a ruling next week.
The alliance is representing four men and one woman in the suit filed last Nov. 7 against Becerra and Sherri Carter, the clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court. They are challenging a 2019 state law that they say initially was written to allow all convicted felons, including registered sex offenders, to be jurors.
However, the bill was later amended “to target registrants by making them the sole class of persons excluded from that bill’s reforms,” according to the suit.
It just NEVER ends, does it?
I like how the news source smeared the plaintiffs right from the headline. “Sex offenders” aren’t demanding anything!
Litigating these issues is a long process, but not as long a process as educating the media.
Anyway, thank you, ACSOL.
You have a right to a jurry of your peers . the question is what constitutes a “peer”
Googles definition is ” a person of the same age, status, or ability as a specified person” well our status as registered citizens placed on us by the courts makes any jury that is not comprised of other registered citizens a violation of this right . the courts push to keep us from being able to vote so we can’t try to get rid of there draconian laws and rules , to vote for people who might have more integrity or brains to make laws using the research and statistics instead of going with popular misconceptions and lies. They don’t want us on hurts because they are afraid they won’t get the easy convictions that we would listen to the facts of the case not the innuendo , misdirection , and in some cases outright lies of the prosecuters. And we know enough to read what the laws require for a conviction. So let’s see what they use to further theyer agenda and keep us oppressed and try to suppress our voices.
To comment on the article, you must be logged into Facebook.
Much respect to the AG in the way they justified the exclusion:
“The Legislature could have rationally been concerned with juror bias … harbored by persons who are subject to continuing, intrusive government monitoring, surveillance, and supervision.”
A very good point!
But one which highlights what good plaintiffs these are— all have been crime-free for a decade or more, raising the question of why any of them reasonably should be “subject to continuing, intrusive government monitoring, surveillance, and supervision.”
Just like the right to vote! an American citizen and cannot vote in stat or federal elections. That is just flat wrong!
An important note: This article is a perspective on a hearing that took place. No decision has been made on the issue yet.
Kudos to ACSOL for taking on so many issues and protecting so many rights!
There are some valid points made in our member comments, particularly equating it to the the voting restriction.
What stands out is a defendant is entitled to be tried by a “jury of their peers”. If juries can’t be comprised by a cross section of all people, that’s not a jury of one’s peers. If one of the parties or the court determines that a particular juror might be biased or incapable of making a fair and impartial decision, the juror can be struck during voir dire.
Similarly, a democratic process calls for the vote of all people. That includes people who have insight into a position that others might not.
In Connecticut, even while I was on probation, I got a jury duty notice. My probation officer told me I can serve on jury. The court clerk said the same. I showed up for the selection but was (thankfully) not selected. Oh, and in Connecticut ALL felons can vote. This is a United States right that no state has any business taking away from anyone unless that person is currently incarcerated.
In offering her rationale for dismissal, the judge said the law still bars some convicted felons from jury service, including those in custody and others under court supervision.
Custody and court supervision are elements of the punishment meted out for a crime. This judge has just equated registration with punishment. One of the legs supporting registration is that it is merely a civil regulatory measure, and not punishment. We should thank the judge.
Nice catch Ed I missed that point myself