Should States Allow Those With Prior Convictions to Serve on Juries?

Maryland, once again, has presented a bill that would allow those with prior convictions to serve on juries. Maryland’s current law, defined as “one of the most restrictive in the country,” prohibits offenders of both felonies and some misdemeanors from serving on juries unless they receive a pardon. The proposed bill would allow convicted felons to serve on juries after completion of their sentences, while still excluding those found guilty of witness intimidation or jury tampering.

Maryland’s decision to alter their current law is the result of criminal justice reform. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, all states have some form of jury exclusion for those with prior convictions, resulting in almost twenty million people across the U.S. being barred from jury service. While some states only restrict those who are currently incarcerated, most states also exclude those with past felony convictions. Some states allow those with felonies to serve after their sentence, including probation and parole, is complete. In more extreme cases like Maryland, those with certain misdemeanor convictions are also barred from jury service. 

For example, Texas, which defines jury service as a “privilege,” bars people from serving who are convicted or under indictment for a felony or misdemeanor theft. South Carolina bars those who have been convicted of or are under indictment for any violation punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, including Class A and Class B misdemeanors. This includes convictions for vandalism, instigating or participating in a riot, and first degree harassment (see the full list here).  

There are strong arguments for temporarily barring those with pending cases or who are incarcerated from serving on juries. But, what about those who complete their sentences, whether it be for a felony or misdemeanor? Barring those with prior convictions, even after successfully completing their sentence, disproportionately affects minority communities. For example, almost one-third of black males have felony convictions, which would exclude them from serving on juries in most states. 

One major critique of the concept of a “jury of one’s peers” is that many states struggle to diversify their jury pools for a multitude of reasons. One reason is that, despite completing their sentences, many minorities are still not allowed to serve on juries because of prior convictions. Those opposed to allowing this population to serve on juries believe that they would disregard the rules and would be possibly too empathetic to the defendant. However, those with prior convictions may actually “outperform” those without prior convictions, as they contribute more to deliberations and cover more of the facts presented at trial. Additionally, those with prior convictions are no more likely to sympathize with a defendant than other jurors.

Jury service is one of the most notable civic duties, that, as some would say, is a privilege. However, excluding a major portion of the population from performing this civic duty not only affects those who are excluded but also defendants seeking a jury of their peers to determine their guilt or innocence.