s the only thing we have in place right now. They take twelve jurors from all walks of life & leave them to decide the fate of another, some of them are bigots, some are so closed minded. I dont think I would ever want to be tried by a jury of twelve. They should have paid jurors, thats all they do, they have more experience & totally devote themselves to their jobs as professional jurors. As a Christian, I would not like to be responsible for making judgement on another, unless I witnessed the crime first hand. Many juries of twelve have made errors, & sent innocent people to jail over & over. Most people resent doing jury duty anyway, so a lot of them dont care about the outcome .I have sat on jury duty & I was amazed at the attitude most jurors had, at one deliberation, a person sitting next to me in the room said they are guilty, they are Nig----, I told him he should have made that known when the Judge asked if anyone was predjudiceBecause no one knows better then we Catholic Christians the difference between right and wrong! I have served a number of times and could easily see thru any lies,fabrications,distortions and theatrics since Jesus is my Savior…also I taught a class in communications for many years…that also helped! One case in point…the plaintiff claimed she was a cripple since this elevator closed on her too soon etc…I noticed after she was wheeled in that the bottom of her shoes were scuffed…worn…she either had someone elses shoes on or she was lying…I chose lying and voted against her!..Pas
if you are speaking of participating in the established legal system to either be the judge of the law–an elected or appointed official with knowledge of the the law and authority to interpret it in a given case–or as a judge of fact–as a juror carrying out one of the duties and privileges of citizenship–yes a Christian who is a good citizen should endorse both. Our responsibility is to see that we elected responsible legislators to enact good laws, responsible judges to interpret the law, and serve on juries to insure everyone accused gets a fair hearing under the law.
Why is it that the lawyers challenge so many potential jurors before the case, because he wants all dumb people or all smart people , so the verdict outcome will be more in his favor
I agree about not wanting to be responsible for making a judgment on another. I’ve been blessed so far not to have been picked to serve on a jury yet. And yes, certainly there’s going to be quite a lot of diversity amongs the jurors - not all will be fair or even can be fair if they don’t have a rule of measure (like church teachings) to guide them. Yet we still cannot know all things about a situation and I’m very uneasy over the idea of having to make a judgement based on imperfect evidence (which is all we’d have).
Yes, I realize what we currently have is the best we can possibly do, however, I question whether or not a Christian should make such judgements about others. For that matter, I suppose that even if I were not a Christian, it would make me uneasy - maybe it has nothing to do with Christianity. (thinking…)
But we must also acknowledge that we can’t possibly know with certainty all of the circumstances behind a situation. Someone can look totally guilty according to all the evidence but that person could have been framed, evidence planted, etc… There could be more to the story. I just don’t know if I’d ever be satisfied with the evidence to make a decision like that, yet I realize that society HAS to do this in order to keep civil order.
Yes, I think you’re correct about that; the type of judgement we shouldn’t make is a spiritual one, however, a crime like, for instance, murder, is a civil crime as well as a sin. So, in essence we are still making a judgement about whether or not the person sinned. That is a spiritual judgement, is it not?
I used to believe, as did the Mennonite church I attended, that Christians should not participate in a jury. I’ve never really studied the Catholic position on serving as a juror and have never really given it much thought other than that I know I would not be comfortable doing it. Yet I realize it is something that has to be done and this is the only way we can do it fairly.
Does serving on a murder trial make you responsible for the method of punishment?
a juror does not pronounce a judgement on another, he judges the facts of the case, whether or not the witnesses are telling the truth, and whether or not the evidence supports the prosecution’s case. The judge also does not judge a person, he judges the law, and interprets its application to the case at hand. Nobody is deciding who goes to heaven or hell, they are judging a specific situation according to available testimony and evidence and judging how the law and facts apply in that situation. There is a difference.
Amen to everything you said, You worded it much better than I did!
Many people interpret the passage “Judge not lest you be judged” to mean that we should make no judgments at all, but this is not the case. It is not all judgments we are forbidden to make, only improper judgment:
Thanks for those quotes, Ender. It did occur to me that every day I make judgments, sometimes even on other people. I don’t judge the motive of the act, but I do have to judge the acts. I suppose I would be doing no more than that as a juror either? No, that can’t be so. As a juror I would have to judge the moral culpability of the person being accused. I don’t think I could do that.
You positively have no idea if a person is lying, you can not always see thru a lie. You were not there, so You can only surmise, You only know what yourself is doing for sure
And half the time I’m not even sure what I’M doing!
Why is there a voir dire process? Because people will not always openly admit to having a bias, and such a procedure allows one side or the other to remove potential bias where none is admitted or proven. Example: The crime is assualt/battery on a policeman. Jane Doe in the juror pool, her dad and her brother are policemen. She says she can hear the case and fulfill her jury responsibility without prejudice… but the defense isn’t going to take her word for it.