Book Review: James M. Binnall, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System

In his book, Twenty Million Angry Men: The Case for Including Convicted Felons in Our Jury System, James Binnall discusses whether or not there is sound empirical evidence that proves that ex-convicts should be barred from participating in jury duty. Currently, most states in the United States permanently forbid those with a felony conviction from serving as a juror while some states allow convicted felons to serve only after their entire sentence (including parole and probation) is completed; Maine is the only state that has no restrictions whatsoever.

Last Words and Dying Speeches

Chapter 7 focuses in detail on the gallows speeches printed in Scotland between the late sixteenth and the late eighteenth centuries. It provides the first detailed examination of this form of cheap print in a Scottish context. The dying words spoken by convicted felons on the scaffold before their execution were as popular as the spectacle of capital punishment itself. Printed sheets containing these farewell orations sold on the streets and were a staple form of popular literature. Their contents reveal much about the nature of public execution in Scotland, the attitudes of the authorities towards sin and crime, and the behaviour of sufferers on the point of death.

Ignorance

This chapter begins Lambert v. California, a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a woman charged with a crime she didn’t realize she was committing. Lambert violated a Los Angles ordinance making it a crime for convicted felons to remain in the city for more than five days without registering with the police, but she was unaware of her duty to register. It describes in more detail what the actus reus and mens rea requirements entail when applied to a defendant who didn’t realize she was committing a crime. As a preface to that effort it discusses and criticizes the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It then introduces a test, in relation to actus reus, for determining if a defendant who didn’t realize she was committing a crime could have realized she was (the Lex test) and then compares the actus reus requirement to the existing defense of insanity. It thereafter turns to a discussion of the mens rea requirement as applied to ignorant defendants, analyzing some hard cases, and then concludes with a discussion of tracing.

Public perceptions of felon-juror exclusion: An exploratory study

Despite the pervasiveness of felon-juror exclusion, this is the first study to systematically explore public opinions about the exclusion of convicted felons from voting and jury service. While results from 815 Californians revealed greater support for felon-voters than for felon-jurors, a majority opposed felon-juror exclusion and rejected the rationales for doing so. Findings also revealed stark ideological divides, as conservatives were less likely to support felon-voters or felon-jurors, and were more likely to endorse the justifications for felon-juror exclusion. As states debate legislation permitting felon-juror inclusion, our findings indicate that support for such policies is likely greater than courts and policymakers had previously thought, suggesting that officials might benefit from re-considering whether this form of civic marginalization actually represents the will of the people.

Collateral Consequences and Disenfranchisement

With the high rate of guilty pleas in our justice system, attention needs to be paid to the consequences of these convictions, beyond the sanctions imposed at a sentencing hearing. Namely, the increase in guilty pleas has led to an unprecedented number of United States citizens with restrictions imposed on them that limit their employment, access to housing or government assistance, and to an unprecedented number being deprived of the right to vote. These collateral consequences of convictions, and the disenfranchisement resulting from the loss of the vote, can disrupt an individual’s life often to a greater extent than the short imprisonment many convicted felons face. This chapter looks at the effects of collateral consequences and disenfranchisement, how these may play into the decision to accept a plea (and who should be informing defendants about these restrictions), and whether proper consideration of the effect of collateral consequences is possible given how our current system of pleas is structured. Areas for future research are also identified.

Pleas of the Crown

This chapter traces the history of criminal procedure. The early ‘appeal’ of felony gave way to the indictment, a written presentment approved by a grand jury. Until Georgian times there were few safeguards for the accused other than whatever care was taken by judge and jury. Counsel were rarely involved, except in treason cases; trials were brief; and there were no appeals. The capital punishment imposed on all convicted felons was adjusted in practice by the mechanisms of sanctuary, benefit of clergy, ‘pious perjury’ by jurors, and pardons. Benefit of clergy was originally a privilege of ordained clergy, but the judges contrived to extend it to any man who could read, and Parliament perfected the fiction by extending it to women and the illiterate. Pardons were widely available underlay both the system of transportation and a form of criminal appeal.