Louisiana voters take aim at Jim Crow-Era jury rule

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Louisiana is the only state where person can be convicted of a felony, and sentenced to life without parole by a jury vote of 10-2. In other words, 2 jurors can believe a person did not commit the crime at issue. All other states, except for one (Oregon?), require a unanimous jury vote (12-0) in order for such a conviction. However, in murder trials, Oregon nonetheless requires a unanimous jury. The rule finds its roots in post-Civil War times. The rationale behind the rule was essentially to increase the likelihood that there would be no shortage of prison workers for state projects, and arguably to maintain inequality after the war. 

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country. Over the past 6 years, 40% of felony convictions were reached by split juries where at least one juror thought the defendant did not commit the crime. There should be no margin of error allowed whatsoever when it comes to jury these jury votes. 

Think about it this way: these crimes are usually tried by both federal and state jurisdictions. A defendant in a federal trial can avoid such a conviction where the jury vote is 11-1. However, that same vote can put a person away for life at the state level.

On Tuesday, residents will vote to repeal this rule. The vote for this amendment is long overdue. Three prominent DAs in Louisiana are backing the bill. 

I will keep you guys up to speed. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Interesting.  Surprised it's been allowed to stay law this long.  Figured it would have been fixed years ago.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/2/2018 at 5:38 PM, Brad_ATX said:

Interesting.  Surprised it's been allowed to stay law this long.  Figured it would have been fixed years ago.

At least I have one true friend on this board who comments on my ish. 

[HVAU 673]

On 11/2/2018 at 2:40 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Louisiana is the only state where person can be convicted of a felony, and sentenced to life without parole by a jury vote of 10-2. In other words, 2 jurors can believe a person did not commit the crime at issue. All other states, except for one (Oregon?), require a unanimous jury vote (12-0) in order for such a conviction. However, in murder trials, Oregon nonetheless requires a unanimous jury. The rule finds its roots in post-Civil War times. The rationale behind the rule was essentially to increase the likelihood that there would be no shortage of prison workers for state projects, and arguably to maintain inequality after the war. 

Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country. Over the past 6 years, 40% of felony convictions were reached by split juries where at least one juror thought the defendant did not commit the crime. There should be no margin of error allowed whatsoever when it comes to jury these jury votes. 

Think about it this way: these crimes are usually tried by both federal and state jurisdictions. A defendant in a federal trial can avoid such a conviction where the jury vote is 11-1. However, that same vote can put a person away for life at the state level.

On Tuesday, residents will vote to repeal this rule. The vote for this amendment is long overdue. Three prominent DAs in Louisiana are backing the bill. 

I will keep you guys up to speed. 

What was the result?  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

27 minutes ago, HVAU said:

What was the result?  

Ah, sorry!! Amended!!!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Unanimous juries for now on!

[HVAU 673]

That's great.  Thanks for the update.

[channonc 466]

Sorry that I am just now commenting on this thread. But like the OP said, convicting someone with a slit jury is horrendous. IMO, I think it completely violates the Constitution. The burden is on the state to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden does NOT fall on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.

Happy about the outcome of the vote. Between this and FL allowing felons to regain their right to vote, we are slowly chipping away at some of these policies that keep our prisons full.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, channonc said:

Sorry that I am just now commenting on this thread. But like the OP said, convicting someone with a slit jury is horrendous. IMO, I think it completely violates the Constitution. The burden is on the state to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden does NOT fall on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.

Happy about the outcome of the vote. Between this and FL allowing felons to regain their right to vote, we are slowly chipping away at some of these policies that keep our prisons full.

Yes! 

I also find the privatization of prisons utterly befuddling, and a Constitutional travesty as well. As stated, Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country. It is sickening that privatized financial interest are furthered through incarceration.

The amendment is certainly a step in the right direction, but there is still work to do! 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 11/9/2018 at 6:03 PM, HVAU said:

That's great.  Thanks for the update.

Baby steps. As I said to Channoc, still work to be done here in Louisiana and other places as well. I hope this symbolizes that we in fact can come together to effectuate change in this country. The measure to amend the jury votes attained support from both the left and right - from the Southern Poverty Law Center to the Louisiana Republican Party. It undoubtedly changes what mass incarceration looks like in our state, but we must caution ourselves from putting down the gavel. It took nearly a century and a half to get this one off of the books. 

[channonc 466]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The amendment is certainly a step in the right direction, but there is still work to do! 

Not to hijack your thread, but I'd be curious to hear (read) your thoughts on what other work could be done.

Oh and I agree with you on private prisons. It is a complete disincintive for the point of prisons. I truly believe we should work to reform and re-integrate the majority of prisoners back into our society. While I certainly believe that there are those who can't be rehabilitated or committed such a horrendous crime that they have lost the chance, I do believe those are the minority of the people locked up today. I think some of our policies surrounding felons keep people from the ability to get a good paying job, etc and make it easier (and sometimes the only choice left) to keep making mistakes and committing crimes.

I'll hang up now and listen.

[SaltyTiger 7,792]

37 minutes ago, channonc said:

I think some of our policies surrounding felons keep people from the ability to get a good paying job, etc and make it easier (and sometimes the only choice left) to keep making mistakes and committing crimes.

Bingo. My experience is with one that chose ( not to keep committing crimes ). Problem was he lied on an employment application form and discovery came a few years later. Fired immediately after a couple of years great service

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 hours ago, channonc said:

Not to hijack your thread, but I'd be curious to hear (read) your thoughts on what other work could be done.

Oh and I agree with you on private prisons. It is a complete disincintive for the point of prisons. I truly believe we should work to reform and re-integrate the majority of prisoners back into our society. While I certainly believe that there are those who can't be rehabilitated or committed such a horrendous crime that they have lost the chance, I do believe those are the minority of the people locked up today. I think some of our policies surrounding felons keep people from the ability to get a good paying job, etc and make it easier (and sometimes the only choice left) to keep making mistakes and committing crimes.

I'll hang up now and listen.

I'll provide three of the biggest points in my mind, briefly. Let me know if I need to expound. 

- Place an emphasis on mental health and rehabilitation. In many circumstances, we are punishing people because of their addiction. Addiction, though, is more complex than what is visible on the surface. I am not well-versed in the medical field, but I cannot imagine what is solved by throwing someone in jail for a physical/mental condition that has evolved to a point where it is out of their control (which to my understanding, addiction is).

- Incentivize quality public counsel. Public defenders are not paid in a way that is commensurate with their work load, and there's not enough public defenders - those two considerations go hand in hand. Cut back wasteful spending at the local and national level, and put it in more efficient places (i.e., towards public defense). We can't expect law students, who are six figures in debt, to flock to the public defender's office while simultaneously paying back mountains of debt - all for a $40K salary. 

- (This goes to what just occurred) Penal Statute reform: Let's keep our criminal statutes up to date. When there are old laws on the books, passed in specific times and tailored to specific circumstances, the legislature needs to address them and ask whether the statute has become nothing more than a funnel for pecuniary benefit. If it's not being applied according to its original intended purposes, then consider an amendment, at minimum. Conversely, if societal values have changed such that the nature of the law is no longer compatible with said values, consider amending irrespective of the law's attainment of intended purposes.  

 

[channonc 466]

Thanks so much for your response, very thoughtful.

Quote

- Place an emphasis on mental health and rehabilitation. In many circumstances, we are punishing people because of their addiction. Addiction, though, is more complex than what is visible on the surface. I am not well-versed in the medical field, but I cannot imagine what is solved by throwing someone in jail for a physical/mental condition that has evolved to a point where it is out of their control (which to my understanding, addiction is).

I agree with you on this. I also think that this issue is not just one related to the criminal justice system but also our healthcare system. I do not think that we have enough resources to address addition on the scale that we need to. But your premise is spot on, jails are not the places for these people. Secondly, I think we need to at least pilot some of the approaches that we have seen in Scandinavia and Canada regarding safe injection sites. We need to also admit that we cannot 100% eradicate drug addiction and need to have a safe place for those who cannot get off drugs.

58 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

- Incentivize quality public counsel. Public defenders are not paid in a way that is commensurate with their work load, and there's not enough public defenders - those two considerations go hand in hand. Cut back wasteful spending at the local and national level, and put it in more efficient places (i.e., towards public defense). We can't expect law students, who are six figures in debt, to flock to the public defender's office while simultaneously paying back mountains of debt - all for a $40K salary. 

100% agree! The lack of resources to public defenders offices is shocking. It is crippling our criminal justice system. Plea deals (even for those who are innocent) are normal. But PDs can only take on so many cases. The lack of resources does end up with a system where the rich can buy justice. This is not how our system was set up.

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

- (This goes to what just occurred) Penal Statute reform: Let's keep our criminal statutes up to date. When there are old laws on the books, passed in specific times and tailored to specific circumstances, the legislature needs to address them and ask whether the statute has become nothing more than a funnel for pecuniary benefit. If it's not being applied according to its original intended purposes, then consider an amendment, at minimum. Conversely, if societal values have changed such that the nature of the law is no longer compatible with said values, consider amending irrespective of the law's attainment of intended purposes.  

Laws can and should be updated. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, channonc said:

Laws can and should be updated. Do you have any specific examples in mind?

I have many thoughts on the inefficiencies of the Model Penal Code, if that counts as an example. Specifically section 2.08 for starters. As you know, many states base their criminal statutes on the MPC, and even adopt provisions verbatim. I am happy to share my concerns.