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).
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.
[sub]Bolding mine. Definitions from Webster’s[/sub]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
I agree that this is an important moral principle and I do practice it on a regular basis. Where we disagree is in our descrition of “love.” Yours is immature at best; a throwback to six-year-old child “logic”: If you loved me, you wouldn’t punish me.
Sorry, doesn’t work that way. If someone professes to love me, I would expect them to make moral judgments on my character, and I would expect them to act so that they may help me improve my moral character.
I, personally, would not have it any other way.
Of course, those of us on this board, who I will not name because this is not the Pit, who are mortally frightened of bothering to improve, or even examine their own moral character, obviously do not wish to have friends with some amount of integrity.
If I may, I’d like to summarize jmullaney’s views. jmullaney, whether he identifies himself by this label or not, is an anarchist. He does not believe that a society of people has the right to collectively decide on undesirable actions and enforce punishments for members who commit those actions. It’s my understanding that anarchists usually believe that governments are by definition institutions which naturally cause corruption and evil.
(As an aside, I’ll mention that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with believing in anarchy, as long as you are peaceful and not hurting other people. One of my best friends is an anarchist, and she’s about the nicest, most decent person I’ve ever met. I do think anarchy is naive, but the world could use more naive optimism.)
The fact that he’s using religion as a justification for anarchy is a little different, considering the fact that churches have usually played the opposite role throughout history, but that’s really just window dressing.
My suggestion: don’t bother arguing about jury duty or religion with him. Those are just symptoms of the more fundamental difference, which is whether or not you believe in anarchy.
jmullaney, according to the Bible, God would probably like us to live in a society free of rules and punishments, where everyone tries to do good, and we all forgive those who fail. There are some obvious problems with this, already pointed out by others:
Not everyone belives in God and/or the Bible (including myself), and so not everyone would try to do good and live free of sin, out of fear of hell or judgement or whatnot.
It’s unrealistic and naive. Human beings aren’t able to let what they value be passively taken from them (their possessions, their loved ones, their lives, etc.) while clinging calmly to a general ideal. Anarchy would quickly lead to a society of vigilantes and warlords.
You have the luxury of being passive, and refusing to participate in enforcing society’s laws, but recognize that this luxury comes from the laws existing. Our justice system and society often causes great injustice, and I think it’s more constructive to try to fight it directly, instead of abandoning the whole thing.
What it means is,(im disregarding the 2nd quote since it makes a very obvious statement that means nothing and ive never seen it in my bible.)
What the first one means is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Saying you can forgive someones sins is blashphemy as shown by when jesus heals a cripple at the temple forgives his sins and states that he can forgive sins because he is special:). Id give the verse except I seemed to have forgotten where my bible is and I don’t know how to find one online.
I don’t know what you mean by “change [my] ways,” but if I did soemthing bad to someone, it would be nice of them to forgive me, yes. I do not, however, expect there to be no consequences for my actions, whether or not forgiveness is rendered.
**
It was hypothetical. You seemed to be basing your ideals on the notion that God would like us all to just be as good as we can and forgive those who stray, and so we should all just do that. The problem is with people who don’t share your beliefs – they could do great evil in such a system, and probably would. Why set up a system with such an unpleasant and predictable outcome?
**
Um, what? I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about.
I’m just saying that the system you seem to endorse would let bad people do really bad things, and there’s no way other people would be able to stick to the passive idealism you seem to endorse. People aren’t built like that. It’s not about “bad people” and “good people”.
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.