Rick, you’re looking for a specific answer to a judgment question. You don’t know if a “strongly religious” juror is going to obey his religion or the law until the case actually goes to the jury, and probably not even then. You do have to say, though, that it’s a reasonable basis for a peremptory decision one way or the other, which seems to be your debate topic.
So, tell us, what grounds for peremptory challenges (which have to be based on minimal factual information and maximal intuition, after all) are acceptable IYHO? I’ve personally been seated by a judge and then peremptorily dismissed, with no information available to the prosecution or defense other than that I’m an engineer with a close relative on a big-city PD, and that I showed up wearing a suit. Another jury I did serve on was seated only after a series of questions which included “Do you have strong feelings about the Suchandsuch Church?” (it turned out that the defendant had received counseling from them). Which of those grounds is acceptable and which is not? Why?
IANAL, but I don’t see the point in pre-emptory challenges at all.
So ElvisL1ves shows up in a suit, and the defense lawyer says to himself, “Not that one - people in suits always vote to convict.” So he uses a pre-emptory challenge.
Next comes Shodan, and I have a moustache. The prosecution says to himself, “Not that clown - he has bits of breakfast stuck to his upper lip, and is obviously too dumb to listen to the prosecution’s case.” So I am off the jury as well.
How would either the rights of the accused or the interests of the People in prosecuting crime be injured if both Elvisl1ves and I were included on the jury?
It seems to me that either the pre-emptory challenge idea systematically weights the system in favor of one side or the other, which is unfair, or it washes out in the long run, which makes it pointless.
So I think I would resolve the questions of the OP by eliminating the pre-emptory challenge altogether. Either challenge for cause, or accept the juror. And let the chips fall where they may.
If the prospective juror clearly indicates that his religious view, and not the law, will drive his decision, wouldn’t that be grounds for removal as a juror?
One argument working against DeJesus is that race and gender have no “degree” while it might be reasonable to find a “degree” to religiosity. One can’t be extremely black or extremely female but they can be extremely religious. I think someone could make more accurate global inferences about the biases of a pool of extremely religious people than they can about black people or females.
One can be female, or one can be female, the founder of a women’s empowerment group, who spends all her waking moments lecturing from street corners on women’s rights and the oppressive male phallic hierarchy.
Similarly, one could be male, or one could be the founder of a men’s movement that believes that women in modern society encroach on male prerogatives and damage the true masculine strenth and spirit.
I’d say those are different case, and entitled to be judged differently. And if we struck either of those prospective jurors peremptively, we’d not be striking them on gender-based grounds, which is prohibited by Batson’s progeny, but on ideological grounds.
Well, there can be degrees of blackness. Octoroon != fresh from Nigeria, after all.
Unless by your “degrees of religiousity” you mean, for instance, that Reformed is OK but Orthodox cannot be allowed. Or establishing an upper limit on how many times you can go to church before being excluded from the jury pool.
I think it is a good-ish point, but a rather sticky situation. How do we claim that a juror is too religious? In fact, what would be the point of this peremptory challenge? Presumably to remove certain jurors from consideration before we even ask them a great deal of questions.
Perhaps it would help if I understood how we would determine someone was too religious before we got to the stage where we would dismiss them for cause?
Suppose one can declare someone to be “too religious” to be able to stay impartial in such a situation… How do you define if someone is too much of an atheist/whatever for doing the same job without atheism having any influence on the judging?
By the way: does the “religion” in the example includes less known religions like satanism and the whole range of non- monotheistic and nature religions?
Suppose one can declare someone to be “too religious” to be able to stay impartial in such a situation… How do you define if someone is too much of an atheist (or whatever) for doing the same job without atheism (or whatever) having any influence on the judging?
By the way: does the “religion” in the example includes less known religions like satanism and the whole range of non- monotheistic and nature religions?
One thing that struck me about this thread was the phrase “heavily involved in religious activities”. You see, by that standard, I would be more likely to be struck from a jury than the poster formerly known as His4Ever, from what she said of what she did, especially if you go back a few months to when I was chalicist, lector, and choir member at my old church. It seems to me that a person can be “heavily involved in religious activities” yet be quite capable of executing a unbiased judgement, therefore, removing a potential juror because “religious people are more likely to be biased against my client” makes no more sense to me that the theory that “black people are more likely to be biased against my client.”
To answer Pkrfcd’s question, I am, as noted, not only heavily religious, but heavily Episcopalian, and I would and have been on a jury in the United States because it is a civic obligation I take very seriously. In order for one to be tried by a jury of one’s peers, one must have peers who are willing to serve as such a jury. I believe God does judge and act; I also believe that He sometimes expects us humans to carry out those actions. Welcome to the SDMB, by the way.
Setting aside the fact that the right of peremptory challenges of potential jurors is a corruption of the jury (and judicial) process, if some well known religious figure like, say, Jim Swaggart, were tried for fraud, his conviction at a trial would be a foregone conclusion if the jury was comprised of, say, twelve non-believing Dopers. It is quite likely that every one of them would have made up his/her mind to convict before any evidence was presented.
The argument for excluding people from jury eligibility on the grounds of being “too religious” could just as easily be extended to the right to vote, and with equal validity.
Alan: That’s disingenuous. An atheist would not have a faith that would over-ride the man-made law. It does not, and could not, apply to a person’s qualification to vote for a candidate.
For one thing, peremptory challenges are not a corruption of the jury. Rather, they are an attempt at preventing such. For another, your assertion that said Dopers would automatically vote against such a person is not ground in fact, it’s grounded in your imagination.
In case you missed it, the challenge against the “too believing” individual is based on the person’s indication that he would go by God’s law instead of man’s law in making his decision as a juror.
A system that allows lawyers to pick and choose potential jurors so that you end with juries comprising, for example, all middleaged men in business suits, or all women aged betwen 20 and 30, or all responding to simple preliminary questions like the proverbial village idiot, or whatever, is a corruption of the jury system.
A jury that does not come reasonably close to representing a cross section of the community is not worth having. I admit that is a personal view and if you’re happy with the current jury selection process, which varies widely between jurisdictions, then so be it.
Perhaps I should have said “most”, not “every one”.
I don’t believe it’s based entirely on my imagination, judging by the tone of the responses to the current thread on Judge Moore and his rock.
If you accept that a potential juror who wishes to apply his or her notion of “God’s Law” (whatever that is) should be ineligible for jury service, then using the same logic, potential jurors who regard jury nullification as a safeguard against the enforcement of unjust laws should be ineligible for jury service.
So what if some people are guided by some version of “God’s Law”. Provided they are not planning to cause death or serious mayhem as a result of their beliefs, then they have the same rights as fellow citizens to participate in the government process as you have.
Trying to restrict their civil rights would be as unjust as attempting to restrict the right of Monty to participate in the political process on the grounds of his belief system.