Is it fair to duck jury duty if you know you could never send anyone to jail?

[User 10K]

I'm such a soft touch for extenuating circumstances that I'd freak if I had to make a decision based on inference or motive or the testimony of an accomplice.
I'd even be too non-commital for a money award.

[Short]

Is it fair: yes, it is always fair to not participate in a racist and fundamentally unfair system. <ducks, as conservatives begin throwing things>

Is it practical: No, you'd still have to show up for voir dire and be eliminated (the judge would probably accept removal for cause).

[Donovan]

Just tell them that when they question the jurors- if the Prosecuting Attorney can find better jury candidates in the pool, they will try to have you removed (If I was the Prosecuting Atty, I know I would try to pass you over if you said that)....

[BobT]

You can't be permanently disqualified jury duty service just because of your tendency to acquit. You'll just get thrown off all the panels.

My advice: Bring a good book to read while you're waiting around in the jury assembly room.

In California, there aren't too many reasons you can get yourself permanently excused from jury duty.

[MsRobyn]

I've managed to get myself kicked off a jury because I am the ex-wife of a convicted felon. During voir dire (the part where both sides ask a bunch of questions to see who's most likely to vote in their favor), I said that because of my status (enough to get me kicked off in itself), I was likely to be prejudiced against the police. I was sent home.

To answer the OP, yes, I do think that anyone who has doubts about their ability to convict has an obligation to step forward and say so.

Robin

[Typo Negative]

You're really not being asked to send someone to jail. You're only being asked if the prosectution has proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. What happens after that is not your concern. (lots of people are given suspended sentences, probation, time served and what-not)

Are you saying you are not capable of making a decision based on the facts presented to you? Or are saying you would always favor a defendent's version? Make sure you say that in a loud, clear voice when the judge asks.

In California, you'll still have to serve 10 days in the jury pool. You just won't get on a case.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

To quote John Adams "it's your duty, dammit!".

[Darqangelle]

It may be "duty", but I certainly don't like the idea of a possible murderer or drunk driver who's essetially a danger to society running loose just because one person doesn't liek the nasty idea of helping in his conviction.

Nobody likes getting their hands dirty, do they?

[DSYoungEsq]

Quite surprisingly, no one has pointed out (yet) that you don't always serve on a jury hearing a criminal case; you might well serve on a jury hearing a civil case, where your feelings about incarceration are even more irrelevant than they are as a fact-finder in a criminal case.

Go. Serve. Be excused if they decide to excuse you. Don't shirk a duty that provides YOU with an amazing protection if you ever need the use of a jury yourself.

[MsRobyn]

Originally posted by spooje
You're really not being asked to send someone to jail. You're only being asked if the prosectution has proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. What happens after that is not your concern. (lots of people are given suspended sentences, probation, time served and what-not)

Are you saying you are not capable of making a decision based on the facts presented to you? Or are saying you would always favor a defendent's version? Make sure you say that in a loud, clear voice when the judge asks.

In California, you'll still have to serve 10 days in the jury pool. You just won't get on a case.

Because of my ex-husband, and my own (VERY) negative experiences with law enforcement and the justice system, I can make the very persuasive argument that I would view the police's actions with more than a healthy dose of skepticism, most likely to the point where I might favor the defendant.

I'm not opposed to jury duty in principle. The case I was excused from was a case I would have loved to hear, just for the entertainment value alone. (It involved a lawyer being busted for possession of a sizable amount of marijuana which he had allegedly taken as his fee. I should note, FTR, that the original trial ended in a mistrial because of the police's actions.) And I want to note that I would serve on a civil jury in a heartbeat.

Robin

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by spooje
You're really not being asked to send someone to jail. You're only being asked if the prosectution has proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, please. That is the biggest load of... wait, I haven't had my morning coffee yet, let me tone it down a bit.

I am an ardent believer in jury nullification, and in fact I consider it my duty to forgive people for their sins.

Now if only they'd bother to call me for jury duty. I'm rarin' to pardon.

[Jodi]

"Jury nullification" refers to the ability of a jury to enter a verdict that is absolutely contrary to the law and facts and presented to them. It means the refusal of a jury to convict someone they know is guilty. A jury does have the ability to enter a null verdict, since you cannot make a jury convict someone if they don't want to, but it flies in the face of their duty to the court and to society. That duty is to decide the facts of the case, apply the law as given to them by the judge, and reach a fair verdict -- not to decide for reasons other than the facts and the law, that they will refuse to do so.

I am amazed that anyone would describe themselves as an "ardent believer" in jury nullification. It amounts to saying "I am an ardent believer in violating my duty as a juror and in ignoring the facts of a case as well as the law in order to reach some result that I personally think is right but that is without reasonable factual or legal basis." If I strain, I guess I can see how a person might favor a null verdict in one particular case -- if the facts and law were both very, very bad -- but I can't see how anyone could possibly be generally in favor having people ignore both the law and the facts to reach some decision they think is "right." If you ignore the law and the facts, how can you possibly decide which decision is "right?"

If a person considers it his duty to "forgive people their sins," then I suggest that person look at the clergy as a possible line of work. The duty of a juror does not include: deciding whether or not someone has "sinned;" "deciding whether or not that person deserves "forgiveness;" or choosing to grant or withhold societal forgiveness. Rather, the duty of a juror in a criminal case is to decide whether or not a person did in fact commit the crime he or she is accused of commiting. The question of severity of punishment and possible forgiveness comes after the determination of whether the person did in fact do the act complained of -- both at law and in religion. If they didn't do it, then there's nothing to forgive.

It amazes me that a person would cheerfully announce himself "rarin' to pardon" without regard to the severity of the crime that might have been done, the damage to the victim or victims, or the justice of punishing the perpetrator. Unless you think that every crime, no matter how atrocious, should automatically be "forgiven" and the criminal set free. In that case, you have no business being on a jury.

Rergarding the OP, as long as you show up when directed and honestly answer the questions put to you, you are not "ducking" jury duty; you are in fact doing your civic duty to the best of your ability. The fact that nobody would ever in a million years actually put you on a jury because of your unwillingness to convict is not your problem.
Now if only they'd bother to call me for jury duty. I'm rarin' to pardon.

[sdimbert]

Just for a giggle...

Dilbert does Jury Duty.

[jmullaney]

Jodi -- I certaintly don't see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and maintain that the forgiveness of sins is wrong. Your duty to God outweighs your duty to society. If you are a juror, you are an arbiter of society's forgiveness. The punishment of sins -- Justice -- is properly left up to God. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! You know darned well a guilty verdict would be punishing this person.

If you do not forgive people for their sins, then yours will not be forgiven either. Do not judge others lest you be judged. You might think that these are just meaningless phrases, but to some people they actually mean what they say.

And don't pretend that "sin" and "crime" don't mean exactly the same thing.

[magdalene]

Originally posted by jmullaney

Jodi -- I certaintly don't see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and maintain that the forgiveness of sins is wrong.

Where did Jodi call herself a Christian? I mean, she might be one - I don't know - but why assume that she is? Why assume that anyone on a jury is a Christian?

Your duty to God outweighs your duty to society.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Jesus H. Christ.

Your duty to society is to show up for jury duty, honestly answer the questions asked of you during voir dire, and if selected for a jury, serve to the best of your ability: ie, consider the law and the facts of the case and render an honest decision regarding guilt, innocence, or liability.

[quote]If you are a juror, you are an arbiter of society's forgiveness. The punishment of sins -- Justice -- is properly left up to God. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! You know darned well a guilty verdict would be punishing this person.[/quote}

By this argument, no one would ever be punished for any crime, ever. Are you saying that rapists, murderers, child molesters, armed robbers, thieves would be allowed to go unpunished because jmullaney forgives them? And what about their victims? And their future victims, if they kill/rape/attack again? You would want all criminals to go free, awaiting "God's ultimate judgement?"

If you do not forgive people for their sins, then yours will not be forgiven either. Do not judge others lest you be judged. You might think that these are just meaningless phrases, but to some people they actually mean what they say.

Whether I "forgive" someone or not is irrelevant to jury service and the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Trials are for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused committed the crime - whether he or she did something that even requires forgiveness.

So how do you feel about civil cases? Do you automatically favor one side or the other?

And don't pretend that "sin" and "crime" don't mean exactly the same thing.

Um, they don't. Should I have been prosecuted for every time I "dishonored my father and mother" during the teen years?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by magdalene
Where did Jodi call herself a Christian?

I am fairly certain she claims to be one.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Jesus H. Christ.

You are misunderstanding this passage. This is regarding whether someone who does not use money needs to pay taxes.

Your duty to society is to show up for jury duty, honestly answer the questions asked of you during voir dire, and if selected for a jury, serve to the best of your ability

Well, the "I was just following orders" defense doesn't chalk up with the Christian God.

By this argument, no one would ever be punished for any crime, ever.

And by your argument, no one would ever be forgiven for any sin ever.

Are you saying that rapists, murderers, child molesters, armed robbers, thieves would be allowed to go unpunished because jmullaney forgives them?

We don't live under mob rule. A juror represents the judgement of society. If that juror is a Christian, they are supposed to forgive people. Just because the system is flawed does not create an excuse to ignore your moral responsibilities.

You would want all criminals to go free, awaiting "God's ultimate judgement?"

It is not what I want, but what God wants.

Whether I "forgive" someone or not is irrelevant to jury service and the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

If you forgive them with one breath, why would you want to still condemn them with the next? You aren't making any sense.

Trials are for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused committed the crime - whether he or she did something that even requires forgiveness.

Trials are for exacting vengeance. Don't lie.

So how do you feel about civil cases?

Propety disputes are another matter entirely.

Should I have been prosecuted for every time I "dishonored my father and mother" during the teen years?

Not all sins are illegal, but I can not think of many things which are illegal which might not be considered sins.

[magdalene]

And by your argument, no one would ever be forgiven for any sin ever.

jmullaney, that is an absolutely false reading of my views. I do think that as a juror, forgiveness is not my business. Forgiveness is something a criminal needs to seek from his victims and his conscience (and God, if he is religious), not 'the state" or "society" or "the jury." That doesn't mean forgiveness is not possible, just that it is not the point of a criminal proceeding.

Your "forgiveness in advance" of all criminals puzzles me, and I ask you again:

Do you, jmullaney, think that all crimes should go unpunished by society?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that rapists, murderers, child molesters, armed robbers, thieves would be allowed to go unpunished because jmullaney forgives them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't live under mob rule. A juror represents the judgement of society. If that juror is a Christian, they are supposed to forgive people. Just because the system is flawed does not create an excuse to ignore your moral responsibilities.

You did not answer my question. Is it your position that rapists, murderers, child molesters, armed robbers, and thieves should never be punished by the state?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would want all criminals to go free, awaiting "God's ultimate judgement?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not what I want, but what God wants.

I'm opening a can of worms here, but how do you know?

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether I "forgive" someone or not is irrelevant to jury service and the guilt or innocence of a defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you forgive them with one breath, why would you want to still condemn them with the next? You aren't making any sense.

[4th grade] NO, YOU ARE NOT MAKING SENSE! [/4th grade]

I'm not saying that I forgive or don't forgive anyone! I'm saying that as a juror, under our legal system, my "forgiveness" is irrelevant and your "forgiveness" in advance of even knowing whether they have committed a crime should preclude you from serving on juries in the USA. I hope that if you are called for jury duty you are honest about these views during voir dire.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trials are for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused committed the crime - whether he or she did something that even requires forgiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trials are for exacting vengeance. Don't lie.

Yes, vengeance upon all the defendants who are found not guilty! Of course!

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how do you feel about civil cases?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propety disputes are another matter entirely.

So, how do you feel about them? A big bad chemical company poisons little children, someone sues. You are on the jury - do you leave it up to God to decide whether the chemical company is liable for their actions and the children deserve compensation?

Again, the gist of your arguments is that society has no right, whatsoever, to punish, incarcerate, or in any way decide the guilt or innocence of wrongdoers - that should all be left up to God. Rape, kill, injure, abuse, molest - jmullaney forgives you, so you should be free to continue until judgement day.

Is that what you are saying? Please clarify.

[Jodi]

JMULLANEY says:

Jodi -- I certaintly don't see how anyone can call themselves a Christian and maintain that the forgiveness of sins is wrong.

I never said that the forgiveness of sins is wrong. But then, unlike you, who appear to consider yourself something along the lines of the Second Coming, I do not consider myself to have the ability to forgive sin. A sin is an offense against divine law, and IMO is only "forgivable" by God Himself. (This, BTW, is one of the reasons I could never be a Catholic -- I do not believe absolution can be granted by a priest or any other person on earth.) It is something different than a crime, which is an offense against secular law. As magdalene points out, the American justice system rightly confines itself to the question of whether an action is criminal -- against society's law -- and not whether an action is sinful -- against God's law. Can an action be both criminal and sinful? Sure. But the justice system only worries about the criminal part.

Your duty to God outweighs your duty to society.

My duty to God is not inconsistent with my duty to society. It certainly is not inconsistent with fairly and impartially hearing the facts of a case before rendering a decision under the secular law.

If you are a juror, you are an arbiter of society's forgiveness.

Wrong. As a juror in a criminal trial, I am a fact-finder concerned with determining whether or not a person has commited a particular crime. I can neither produce nor obstruct forgiveness by the victim or by society. As society forgiven O.J. Simpson? He was acquitted.

The punishment of sins -- Justice -- is properly left up to God.

Justice with a capital "J" -- defined by you as the punishment of sin -- is properly left to God, but justice with a small "j" -- the punishment of crime -- is properly left to society.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

Are you seriously arguing that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished by society? Because, not to mince words, that is ridiculous.

You know darned well a guilty verdict would be punishing this person.

No; a guilty verdict will result in punishment, which will be imposed by the judge -- that's what sentencing is. But even if we can say that finding a person guilty equates to punishing him or her (and certainly I would argue that it ought to), so what? They violated the law; they ought to be punished. That's the whole point of the system.

If you do not forgive people for their sins, then yours will not be forgiven either.

I can forgive people their actions, but I can't forgive their sins. And, despite your apparent belief to the contrary, neither can you. In any event, punishment and forgiveness are not inconsistent; I am fully capable of personally forgiving the girl who steals my purse while simultaneoulsy thinking that she ought to be punished for it.

Do not judge others lest you be judged.

So not only should there be no punishment, there should be no judging -- no legal accountability at all? Sounds like a big ol' bad idea to me.

You might think that these are just meaningless phrases, but to some people they actually mean what they say.

That there should be no justice system, no accountability, and no punishment for secular wrongs? You are the first person I have ever meant in my entire life -- religious or secular, conservative or liberal -- who thinks this is what these passages mean.

And don't pretend that "sin" and "crime" don't mean exactly the same thing.

I don't have to "pretend" that; I believe it and I have said it. For reasons given above, sin and crime are NOT the same things. If you doubt this, look them up in whatever dictionary you have handy.

By the way, this bugs the crap out of me:

It is not what I want, but what God wants.

You do not have any more basis for knowing what God wants than any of the rest of us, and no more reason to believe He tells "the truth" exclusively to you. And since you are yourself an admitted sinner who does not follow the laws of God as you understand them nor, apparently, even seriously try to anymore, it takes balls of solid brass for you to tell anyone what God wants. God wants you to be a little less arrogant and a little less literal. He told me so Himself.

[Lemur866]

First: it is perfectly legal for you to state that you have a bias for or against particular people, crimes, etc, as long as it is the truth, in fact if you are required to answer questions of this sort if asked. You can't get out of Jury Duty that way, but you will be sent back to the jury pool where you can read or do crossword puzzles in peace. But it is perjury to claim a bias that you do not really have simply to be excused from a panel.

But then: Jumllaney. Uh-oh. You must be off your meds again. I really don't get you. In most threads you seem perfectly sane. Then something like this comes along, and you're in JDT territory.

You are saying that as a society, we have no right to police protection? You would refuse to convict a [insert bad-deed]er because you believe YHWH commanded you to? A christian juror, because they are supposed to forgive people, must therefore acquit all defendants? And what about this?:

Trials are for exacting vengeance. Don't lie.

Umm, no they are not. They are about protecting society from bad actions. The purpose is to prevent rape, murder, robbery, etc. Many times we decide that the only way to do that is to lock people up so that they cannot commit the crimes. But the purpose is to protect ourselves, rehabilitation, punishment and vengence are secondary.

And I can think of lots of things that are not sins but are illegal. Crossing the street in the middle. Not a sin, but against the law. Not paying taxes, again not a sin but illegal. Refusing military service. Smoking pot. Driving without a driver's license. Practicing law without a law degree. Selling cookies that were made in a non-govt-approved kitchen. Helping undocumented aliens get jobs.

So we have easily demonstrated that many things that are sins are not against the law, and many things that are against the law are not sins. So, would you be able to convict someone for commiting a crime that was NOT a sin? Say, if someone was busted for pot. Since they haven't commited a sin, by your logic there would be no need to forgive them so you could send them to the slammer with an easy conscience.

Bah. If that's the kind of crap religion comes up with, all I can say is thank God I'm an atheist.

[DSYoungEsq]

Um, folks, when someone is trolling with absurd viewpoints to see you get all wound up, you really shouldn't take the bait like that. Jodi at least knows better.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by magdalene
jmullaney, that is an absolutely false reading of my views. I do think that as a juror, forgiveness is not my business.

If not you, who?

Forgiveness is something a criminal needs to seek from his victims and his conscience (and God, if he is religious), not 'the state" or "society" or "the jury."

If society is not his victim, then why is it any business of society whether or not his should be punished? Doesn't society delegate this authority to the jury in our system?

That doesn't mean forgiveness is not possible, just that it is not the point of a criminal proceeding.

The point of a criminal proceeding is not determine whther someone should be punished for what they are alleged to have done? Then I am honestly unaware of what the point is. Are you saying defendants who are found guilty are never punished?

Do you, jmullaney, think that all crimes should go unpunished by society?

I don't think anyone has given society that right.

As for how I know what God wants -- I believe what Jesus taught is the truth.

Having answered you questions, please answer mine: If you forgive them with one breath, why would you want to still condemn them with the next?

[quote[I'm saying that as a juror, under our legal system, my "forgiveness" is irrelevant and your "forgiveness" in advance of even knowing whether they have committed a crime should preclude you from serving on juries in the USA.[/quote]
Well, I would not need to forgive them if they had not commited a crime. You are saying it is wrong to forgive people. I disagree.

I hope that if you are called for jury duty you are honest about these views during voir dire.

I believe in speaking truly. Just ask Jodi.

A big bad chemical company poisons little children, someone sues. You are on the jury - do you leave it up to God to decide whether the chemical company is liable for their actions and the children deserve compensation?

This I haven't given much contemplation. I suppose that if the company were unwilling to give freely, I would a party to theft.

I just don't believe in "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

Again, the gist of your arguments is that society has no right, whatsoever, to punish, incarcerate, or in any way decide the guilt or innocence of wrongdoers - that should all be left up to God.

That is a valid assessment of what Christ taught.

[magdalene]

Originally posted by DSYoungEsq
Um, folks, when someone is trolling with absurd viewpoints to see you get all wound up, you really shouldn't take the bait like that. Jodi at least knows better.

Are you talking to me? ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by DSYoungEsq
Um, folks, when someone is trolling with absurd viewpoints to see you get all wound up, you really shouldn't take the bait like that.

Yes, I appreciate that some people find Jesus's teachings to be absurd. That's not my problem.

Originally posted by Lemur866
In most threads you seem perfectly sane. Then something like this comes along, and you're in JDT territory.

Well, I never cease to be surprised by what comes out of the keyboards of self-professing Christians and others who claim to have morals.

You are saying that as a society, we have no right to police protection?

Do not resist an evil person.

38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

I don't think it is an act of love to send someone to prison.

the purpose is to protect ourselves

Do not resist one who is evil. Besides, how do you know they would do it again? Are you psychic?

So, would you be able to convict someone for commiting a crime that was NOT a sin?

If they haven't even commited a sin, there is no basis for punishment what-so-ever.

[Short]

As Jodi alluded to, isn't it the duty of a jury to "judge the law as well as the crime." Oregon, for example, has juries determine the law as well as the facts. States like Oregon are (unfortunately) an exception rather than a rule.

I could not in good conscience convict someone (find facts that indicate their guilt) if they had done nothing that I would consider a crime. I think that is (should be) the purpose of jury trials.

[Jodi]

I believe in speaking truly. Just ask Jodi.

Jodi thinks you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Jodi also is forced to conclude that either DSYOUNG is right and you are simply yanking people's chains, or you are . . . I tread a fine line here, to avoid delivering an insult in the santified realm of Great Debates . . . ah, not blessed with a surfeit of cognitive ability.

I'm not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or really ARE obtuse; either way, any attempt to reason with you further is an obvious waste of my time.

SHORT:

As Jodi alluded to, isn't it the duty of a jury to "judge the law as well as the crime."

Boy, I hope I never said this. It is the duty of the jury to decide the facts, not the law. The law is already decided, by the legislature that passed it and the courts that interpret it. Juries find facts, not law.

Oregon, for example, has juries determine the law as well as the facts.

Really? Are you sure? I think I may have to spend a moment looking this up.

I could not in good conscience convict someone (find facts that indicate their guilt) if they had done nothing that I would consider a crime. I think that is (should be) the purpose of jury trials.

It's not. Prostitution is a crime. If you personally did not feel it should be a crime, that would not change the fact that it is a crime. If you as a juror were convinced that the defendant had committed the crime of prostitution but refused to convict them on the grounds it should not be a crime, that would be jury nullification. As noted above, a jury does technically have the right to do this (because it frankly cannot be stopped from doing so), it is not a result to be desired.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Jodi
I do not consider myself to have the ability to forgive sin. A sin is an offense against divine law, and IMO is only "forgivable" by God Himself.

So, you do not have the power to forgive sins, but you do have the power to punish people for them. How quaint!

It certainly is not inconsistent with fairly and impartially hearing the facts of a case before rendering a decision under the secular law.

Do you think it is an act of love to send someone to prison?

As a juror in a criminal trial, I am a fact-finder concerned with determining whether or not a person has commited a particular crime.

Well, you seem to be occluded from the truth of the situation.

but justice with a small "j" -- the punishment of crime -- is properly left to society.

Small J??? You are saying this comes down to punctuation???

Are you seriously arguing that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished by society?

That is what Jesus taught. Who am I to question him?

They violated the law; they ought to be punished.

So you believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, right? Even though Jesus said this was wrong.

I am fully capable of personally forgiving the girl who steals my purse while simultaneoulsy thinking that she ought to be punished for it.

Then what is the purpose of forgiveness? So could God forgive you your sins and still send you to hell? That would be OK with you, right?

there should be no judging -- no legal accountability at all? Sounds like a big ol' bad idea to me.

Christianity is a bad idea? Maybe you are right.

sin and crime are NOT the same things. If you doubt this, look them up in whatever dictionary you have handy.

You are only mincing words. When Jesus walked the earth, if you sinned you were stoned or put into prison for your sins. You know that.

since you are yourself an admitted sinner who does not follow the laws of God as you understand them

You just said Christianity is a bad idea. Please make up your mind.

-------------------------------
"'The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.' ... Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" -- Jesus of Nazareth

[Lemur866]

Jury Nullification: While I agree that a jury does have the right (in most cases) to decide what they want, this should only happen in cases where there is an extreme injustice of the law. Think about how jury nullification has been used...as a tool of racists. This is not something that we should take lightly.

Jmullaney: I knew you were going to say this. Please send me your tunic. And...hmmm, your cloak looks nice too. Please send that as well. You pay the postage, K?

I am an atheist, so your arguments are meaningless. I believe that when I die, I'm just dead, that's it. So, since this life on earth is all I get, I prefer not to be robbed or beaten or killed, since I know that I will not be rewarded in heaven for suffering for Jesus' sake. I'm sure Jesus was a very nice man, but I don't like to be robbed or beaten or killed. NOW do you get it?

[Jodi]

SHORT, Oregon, like most other jursictions, appears to present questions of fact to the jury and questions of law to the judge -- not to the jury.

See, for example, Woolston v. Wells, 687 P.2d 144 (Oregon 1984), where the court held that a defense "presents a pure question of law [and therefore] should not be submitted to the jury."

[Short]

Originally posted by Jodi
SHORT, Oregon, like most other jursictions, appears to present questions of fact to the jury and questions of law to the judge -- not to the jury.

See, for example, Woolston v. Wells, 687 P.2d 144 (Oregon 1984), where the court held that a defense "presents a pure question of law [and therefore] should not be submitted to the jury."

Oh damn, I must have started an argument with a lawyer. Actually I was very careful in my wording; That is I copied the Oregon constitution ( http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orconst.html ) section 16 of which states in part

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

I'm sure you are correct about the interpertation, though. My point was an example of a priciple. Evidentally a bad example, but such is life.

For the record, I got that Jodi alluded to juries judging the laws from some posts back "If I strain, I guess I can see how a person might favor a null verdict in one particular case -- if the facts and law were both very, very bad --..." I apologize if this was a misrepresentation of your views Jodi.

[Jodi]

JMULLANEY, I have responded to you here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=49557

[Jodi]

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Huh. That certainly says what you said it says. Now I'M confused. Be right back.

Back. SHORT, do you know which Article of the Oregon Constitution this is from? If so, I can look up the annotations to it (the cases), but not without that information.

[Moirai]

This is pretty lame. I hope that a pissed off meth-abusing biker attacks jmullany, and he doesn't resist, and gets his stupid little ass kicked.

Back to the OP- did it occur that you could be helping to exonerate an innocent person? Isn't that noble enuf for ya?

Go sit in the pool, it won't kill you. An honest bias is not a crime, blowing it off should be. Don't worry, you will probably never even get to that point anyway- I have been in the jury pool three times in the last few years, and have never even gotten to voir dire.

[Kami_Bum]

Hmmm....In case you didn't know jmullaney, not everyone is Christian, so God has no relevance to some. When they die without punishment for a crime because of people like you, that is it (No religion has been proved right or wrong yet...). It encourages more crime since criminals know they won't receive punishment.

Some people also actually value order in a society as well. Therefore, since these people seem to be the majority, laws and government were established to keep order. Anarchy would prevail if everyone were like you. Why bother having laws if they aren't enforced?

[BobT]

As for the OP here are the reasons in California for which you are automatically ineligible for completing jury service

203. (a) All persons are eligible and qualified to be prospective
trial jurors, except the following:
(1) Persons who are not citizens of the United States.
(2) Persons who are less than 18 years of age.
(3) Persons who are not domiciliaries of the State of California,
as determined pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2020) of
Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Elections Code.
(4) Persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they
are summoned to serve.
(5) Persons who have been convicted of malfeasance in office or a
felony, and whose civil rights have not been restored.
(6) Persons who are not possessed of sufficient knowledge of the
English language, provided that no person shall be deemed incompetent
solely because of the loss of sight or hearing in any degree or
other disability which impedes the person's ability to communicate or
which impairs or interferes with the person's mobility.
(7) Persons who are serving as grand or trial jurors in any court
of this state.
(8) Persons who are the subject of conservatorship.
(b) No person shall be excluded from eligibility for jury service
in the State of California, for any reason other than those reasons
provided by this section.

The next section expounds on this more:

204. (a) No eligible person shall be exempt from service as a trial
juror by reason of occupation, race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, or economic status, or for any other reason. No person shall
be excused from service as a trial juror except as specified in
subdivision (b).
(b) An eligible person may be excused from jury service only for
undue hardship, upon themselves or upon the public, as defined by the
Judicial Council.

So in California the OP has no excuse for not serving jury duty unless s/he can prove one of the conditions in section 203.

[Short]

[quote]Originally posted by Jodi

SHORT, do you know which Article of the Oregon Constitution this is from? If so, I can look up the annotations to it (the cases), but not without that information.

Oops, I meant to include that too. It is Art 1, sec 16. This is a bit of a hijack, but what database do you use to reseach state law questions? Several sites I use have USSC caselaw, but all have little or no state caselaw.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Kami_Bum
not everyone is Christian, so God has no relevance to some.

Good point Kami. That whole "love of enemy" bit is a hard thing to swallow -- and I'm hardly a good person. But were push to come to shove I'd have to do what I could. I couldn't bear the thought of having sent someone to prison on my conscious. I don't think such punishment serves anyone.

[Sterra]

jmanually you can't forgive people. You can only not judge them. Only jesus and god have the ability to forgive sins.
Of course not judging them does not mean not judging wether or not they did a paticular thing.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Only jesus and god have the ability to forgive sins.

Then what does this mean?

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Or this:

If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

Or the Lord's prayer, fer crying out loud.

But please, come join the Pit thread. Someone just quoted Jesus and said that his teaching was the stupidest thing they'd ever heard!

[DSYoungEsq]

Short, I find that a good starting point for legal research involving cases or statutes is http://www.findlaw.com which has a wealth of resources available. Or, of course, you can try using the various search and find services to locate web pages, using the name of the state and the word 'statutes' or 'cases'.

[friedo]

Originally posted by jmullaney

So, you do not have the power to forgive sins, but you do have the power to punish people for them. How quaint!

A juror has the power to decide if someone has committed a crime. A judge, either elected or appointed by an elected executive, has the power to punish a person for said crime. The victim of an action has the power to forgive the perpetrator for that action. Nobody has the power to forgive or to punish someone for a sin. Your inability -- nay -- your deliberate refusal to see the difference between these two elementary concepts is frightening and disheartening.

[Jodi]

Oh, sure, Doug, drop by and cite Findlaw but don't clear up this confusion about the Oregon constitution . . .

Short, upon a second look, the short answer (ha!) I think is that the most important part of that section regarding the duty of jurors is the last four words: ". . . as in civil cases." I think this means that in criminal matters the jury shall have the same right to decide the law as they do in civil matters -- not that they have that right to any particular or great extent, but that they don't have it to any lesser extent. I couldn't find a case directly on this point, but I did find cases as far back as the 1920s saying that juries in Oregon do NOT decide the law, only the facts. So I dunno, but that's my guess.

What database to I use for research? It's called "the library." I'm being facetious but honest; I work in a government building that also happens to house a big law library and I zip over there a lot for Board questions. For work, I have access to Lexis and Westlaw, but I obviously don't use them for non-work-related stuff because they are prohibitively expensive.

The best Internet research site, hands down IMO, is Findlaw. You might also take a look at http://www.washlaw.edu , which I think has the most comprehensive information for an academic site (i.e., a law school).

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by friedo
A juror has the power to decide if someone has committed a crime. A judge, either elected or appointed by an elected executive, has the power to punish a person for said crime.

I still feel like I'd be aiding and abetting.

Nobody has the power to forgive or to punish someone for a sin.

You don't see prison as a punishment?

your deliberate refusal to see the difference between these two elementary concepts is frightening and disheartening.

Right back at you on your inability to see that they are the same.

[friedo]

Originally posted by jmullaney

You don't see prison as a punishment?

Of course prison is a punishment. It is a punishment for a serious crime.

Crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law

Sin: an offense against religious or moral law, transgression of the law of God.

_{Bolding mine. Definitions from Webster's}

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The difference between crime and sin seems quite clear to me. The first amendment guarantees that no one will ever be tried for a sin in the United States.

Right back at you on your inability to see that they are the same.

Except, I've just flipped through my dictionary to show you that they are not. Being an atheist, I don't even believe in any such thing as sin, but I do believe in the necessity and utility of secular law, and that society at large needs to be protected from people who would disobey such law. I do believe in forgiveness, I think it is a wonderful and difficult thing to do. Who the hell am I to "forgive" someone for an offense to God? That's between that person and God.

A juror acts as a representative of society (whose wishes are represented as the standing public law) and makes a decision based on that law.

[jmullaney]

OK, let me try this again.

Love thy neighbor as you love thyself

That seems like a simple enough rule, which even many atheists I know agree with. Of course, I do a lousy job of it, but that's not that issue. Let me say it again:

Love your neighbor as you love yourself

Now, for some of you people in the audience confused by the word love, let me explain this a little further. I can't give you a perfect picture, but I'll try:

This means you neither do, say, or think, anything towards your neighbor that you would not want them to do, say or think towards you

Simple enough, no?

Now:

I would not want to be thrown into prison. Therefore, keeping in mind the golden rule, I can't throw anyone else into prison

See how easy it is to apply the rule? If anyone does not understand the golden rule or only want it to apply when they are on the receiving end of the love, I pity them.

[Moirai]

Originally posted by jmullaney
[b]OK, let me try this again.

Love thy neighbor as you love thyself

Now, for some of you people in the audience confused by the word love, let me explain this a little further. I can't give you a perfect picture, but I'll try:

This means you neither do, say, or think, anything towards your neighbor that you would not want them to do, say or think towards you

Simple enough, no?

So, if a particularly un-neighborly person fatally shoots you, we should thank him and let him walk? Because of course, we just couldn't bear the responsibility of holding him accountable for his actions- we'll wait and hope that a Higher Power takes care of it at some point. Meanwhile, you're much quieter.

This is interesting.

I don't suppose you could move to South Central or the Bronx or something, so we can test the theory? Just a thought.

[Moirai]

Dammit, when's my typing class? The boldie thing did it, not me!!!

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by EJsGirl
if a particularly un-neighborly person fatally shoots you, we should thank him and let him walk?

Well, let's see. If that person was a soldier and I was the enemy, you'd not only let him walk, you'd give him a medal, right?

we just couldn't bear the responsibility of holding him accountable for his actions

Who died and made you boss? If he repents, forgive him. But our system of "justice" does not allow for that forgiveness. So I wash my hands of the whole thing.

[Cantrip]

jmullaney, the Golden Rule is Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This seems different from "Love thy neighbor as thyself", which implies to me that I should accept my neighbor in the same way I accept myself.

OK, let's say I commit the "crime" of speeding. I get a fine. I think I deserve a fine. Therefore, if my neighbor speeds, I can certainly impose a fine on my neighbor.

I commit the crime of, oh, insider trading. (I wish.) I get caught. I think I deserve to be punished, having broken society's rules. (I don't think the Bible mentions insider trading, but let me know if it does.) Therefore, if my neighbor is accused of insider trading, I should be able to sit in judgment in a court of law, understanding that I am loving my neighbor no more and no less than I love myself.

Btw, the Golden Rule is expressed positively, not negatively. It means, IMO, to treat others as you would like to be treated. It does not mean that you cannot treat others in a way that you would not like to be treated, but if you do you should expect others to treat you similarly.

A jury is supposed to determine the facts (and, perhaps in Oregon, the law ) and determine in good faith whether an accused has broken the law. Wouldn't you want a jury of your peers to deliberate conscientiously to arrive at a "true verdict"? So shouldn't you do the same?

[Cantrip]

Originally posted by jmullaney

Well, let's see. If that person was a soldier and I was the enemy, you'd not only let him walk, you'd give him a medal, right?

Joel, this is bullshit. I am asleep in my bed, in the State of New York, which AFAIK is not at war. My neighbor, a usually nice 68-year-old woman, breaks into my apartment and fatally shoots me. Forget about how realistic the scenario is; answer EJsGirl's question: should my neighbor be able to go home and await judgment by God upon her death without being judged for having broken the New York Criminal Code?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Cantrip
OK, let's say I commit the "crime" of speeding. I get a fine. I think I deserve a fine. Therefore, if my neighbor speeds, I can certainly impose a fine on my neighbor.

If I was gay, I'd want someone to kill me. Therefore, it is OK for me to kill gays.

Hey, thanks, your hypothetic logic makes perfect sense. Well, I'm off to buy a gun.