A proposed bill
would expand the California jury pool to include
state income tax filers. The bill was introduced on February
14, 2020 by California state Senator Scott Weiner. The goal of the bill is
to ensure that jury pools are more diverse and demographically representative
of California’s population. Currently, prospective jurors are selected from county
lists of registered voters or the California Department of Motor Vehicles
driver’s license and identification card lists. Senator Weiner argues that
these lists are not demographically representative, and thus the jury pool pulled
from these lists tend to skew whiter, wealthier, and overall less diverse that
the state actually is. If the bill is passed, it would join a list of reforms aimed
towards increasing the diversity and representativeness of California juries. The
most recent example is allowing
people with previous felony convictions to be eligible to serve on juries
as long as they’re not on parole or probation and they aren’t registered felony
sex offenders.
These reforms seeking
to increase the diversity and representativeness of jury pools should be
celebrated because a diverse, inclusive, and representative jury pool is critical
to preserving the right to a fair and impartial jury. Before any further
discussion takes place, some vocabulary is necessary to ensure that we are all
on the same page. Diversity
refers to the traits and characteristics that make people unique while inclusion refers to the
behaviors and social norms that ensure people feel welcome. Representativeness
is defined as the level of how well or how accurately something reflects upon a
sample. So, with respect to jury pools, representativeness means the extent to
which the jury pool reflects the characteristics of the community. With these
concepts in mind, we return to the discussion at hand.
While it took a
while for the fact to be recognized,
it is now indisputable that a diverse, inclusive, and representative jury pool
is critical to preserving the right to a fair and impartial jury. The
importance of an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community to
the American tradition of trial by jury was emphasized by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the 1946 case Thiel v. Southern
Pacific Co. This does not mean that every jury must be representative of
all the economic, social, religious, racial, political, and geographical groups
of the community because this would be impossible. However, it does mean that
prospective jurors should be chosen without systematic and intentional exclusion
of any of these groups. This reasoning is based on the fact that jury
competence is an individual rather than a group or class matter. Disregarding
this fact opens the door to class distinctions and discriminations that are
antithetical to the democratic ideals of trial by jury.
In addition to
promoting democratic ideals, a representative jury has true utility in ensuring
the justice system’s integrity and reliability. First, a representative jury confirms
the legitimacy—fairness and impartiality—of the system for both the defendant
and the public at large. Further, a representative jury increases
the effectiveness of the jury’s fact-finding. Studies indicate that minority
presence on juries allows the group to understand and appreciate different life
experiences. This, by extension, helps eliminate and lessen individual biases
or prejudices. Additionally, studies indicate that diverse juries have longer
deliberations, discuss more case facts, make fewer inaccurate statements, and
are more likely to correct inaccurate statements.
The proposed
California bill is an important step towards ensuring that jury pools are more diverse,
inclusive, and representative. However, on a nationwide basis, there is still more
to be done. In the federal system, potential jurors are selected from registered
voters and individual courts may supplement the list with names from driver’s
license and identification card lists. Similarly to the proposed California bill,
the federal jury pool should be expanded to include federal income tax filers that
reside in the federal court’s jurisdiction. Additionally, while people who have
previously been convicted of a felony can serve on federal juries if their civil
rights have been restored, restoration of civil rights depends on state
law.
At the state level, states that have a state income tax should expand
their jury pools to state income tax filers. States that do not have a state
income tax should expand their jury pools to include federal income tax filers that
reside in the jurisdictions of corresponding state courts. Further, around 30
states prohibit people who have previously been convicted of a felony from serving
on juries, nine of which are lifetime bans. These states should enact
legislation that allows people who have been previously convicted of a felony
to serve on juries if they meet certain qualifications set by their respective states.
These reforms would ensure that jury pools are more diverse, inclusive, and representative
of their corresponding communities, which is critical to the right to a fair
and impartial jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment