What is the CC teaching about being in a jury?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pablope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pablope

Guest
Hi, all…if called to be in a jury in a trial, what is a Catholic’s responsibility to pass judgement of guilty or not guilty, or is it to stay neutral?

What is the CC teaching in such cases.

pablo
 
Catholics can certainly pass judgement and verdicts in matters of human law. St Thomas More was a great judge who became a martyr and a great saint.

A Catholic’s obligation is the same as anyone else’s if called on to be a juror - weigh up the evidence to the best of their ability and, if truly convinced that enough proof of guilt has been given, to say so in the jury room.
 
pablope said:
Hi, all…if called to be in a jury in a trial, what is a Catholic’s responsibility to pass judgement of guilty or not guilty, or is it to stay neutral?

What is the CC teaching in such cases.

pablo
Click to expand...
Hi pablope,

I don’t really know the answer to that, or if there is one. I can share with you what my response was the two separate times I was called for jury selection:

I told them that I did not want to be part of the jury for two reasons:
  1. I didn’t trust lawyers to divulge the whole truth and that many times evidence was withheld from jurers, therefore, I could never pass judgement on an accused in all good conscience, since innocent people had in the past been found guilty because of this.
  2. I had young children and no one to watch them should I be called to be a jurer.
I was excused both times I was “selected” for jury duty.
 
pablope said:
Hi, all…if called to be in a jury in a trial, what is a Catholic’s responsibility to pass judgement of guilty or not guilty, or is it to stay neutral?

What is the CC teaching in such cases.

pablo
Click to expand...
Good question. I am not sure just what the Church has to say concerning the concept of Jury Nullification:confused:
 
pablope said:
Hi, all…if called to be in a jury in a trial, what is a Catholic’s responsibility to pass judgement of guilty or not guilty, or is it to stay neutral?

What is the CC teaching in such cases.

pablo
Click to expand...
Be “smart as snakes and simple as doves” (Jesus) and true to your conscience.
 
CEM5 said:
Hi pablope,

I don’t really know the answer to that, or if there is one. I can share with you what my response was the two separate times I was called for jury selection:

I told them that I did not want to be part of the jury for two reasons:
  1. I didn’t trust lawyers to divulge the whole truth and that many times evidence was withheld from jurers, therefore, I could never pass judgement on an accused in all good conscience, since innocent people had in the past been found guilty because of this.
  2. I had young children and no one to watch them should I be called to be a jurer.
I was excused both times I was “selected” for jury duty.
Click to expand...
#2 is generally accepted as a valid reason for excuse from jury duty in most countries.
They probably excused you if you stated #1 too, but you wouldn’t be flattered by the reason - probably because they read it and said “we don’t want to bother dealing with this nutter”.

The Church teaches that Catholics have a duty to be good citizens and fulfil all of their civic responsibilities which are required by the properly constituted civil authorities.

This includes obeying all civil laws which apply to you, except for any specific laws which the pope or your bishop has specifically stated conflict with the universal moral law. Such laws may include imposing on citizens compulsory duties such as voting, military service (or alternative national service for conscientious objectors) or serving on a jury.

A Catholic should be glad of the opportunity to serve his country and his fellow citizens in this way. He should not try to get out of jury duty unless he has a genuine reason why it would cause undue serious hardship. Police, lawyers and judges are not perfect, but that is no excuse for a juror not fulfilling his obligations to make the best judgment he can on the evidence which is put before him.
 
Petergee said:
#2 is generally accepted as a valid reason for excuse from jury duty in most countries.
They probably excused you if you stated #1 too, but you wouldn’t be flattered by the reason - probably because they read it and said “we don’t want to bother dealing with this nutter”. .
Click to expand...
lol 😛 “nutter”.
Well, it is a valid reason because my conscience could not declare the guilt or innocence of an accused because history has demonstrated that too many times valid evidence (and past crimes if applicable) are not fully disclosed. There have been cases where jurers have found accused guilty, then later it was revealed that the authorities did not disclose pertinent evidence for one reason or another, and the damage to those poor jurers minds is, in my opinion, a crime in itself.

That is one reason Canada does not have the death penalty.
Petergee said:
The Church teaches that Catholics have a duty to be good citizens and fulfil all of their civic responsibilities which are required by the properly constituted civil authorities.

This includes obeying all civil laws which apply to you, except for any specific laws which the pope or your bishop has specifically stated conflict with the universal moral law. Such laws may include imposing on citizens compulsory duties such as voting, military service (or alternative national service for conscientious objectors) or serving on a jury.

A Catholic should be glad of the opportunity to serve his country and his fellow citizens in this way. He should not try to get out of jury duty unless he has a genuine reason why it would cause undue serious hardship. Police, lawyers and judges are not perfect, but that is no excuse for a juror not fulfilling his obligations to make the best judgment he can on the evidence which is put before him.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic I do obey the civil laws as they apply to me (obedience to Church first). I serve my country in other ways, and as for accepting jury duty…well, if it goes against one’s conscience, then it is not applicable. There are other people who have no problem with that, however, I have a problem with it, and this does not go against my civil duty.
 
Thank you all for your responses.

Another question I have is can religious reason, like Catholic teaching be a reason to be excused form serving in a jury panel?
 
This certainly isn’t morally acceptable, but it worked in my sister’s case when she was hell-bent on getting out of jury duty: She sat in the jury bullpen room, and scratched herself constantly and apparently uncontrollably. I think they thought she had lice, and excused her.
 
pablope said:
Thank you all for your responses.

Another question I have is can religious reason, like Catholic teaching be a reason to be excused form serving in a jury panel?
Click to expand...
Some states, like California, still have the death penalty. If the proposed case could involve the death sentence, you will be asked if you would vote for it. Just say something to the effect that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, and you will vote your Catholic conscious:yup:
 
Because of my own personal sinfulness,
I really do not feel comfortable passing judgment on another human being,
let alone recommending a sentence,
in general.

Now, if we are talking about a particularly barbaric crime,
such as what happened to Nicole Brown Simpson (OJ’s ex wife),
I could probably bring myself to serve on such a jury without too much
qualms of conscience.

But I have been summoned to Jury Duty several times, and
never got picked. One time over 17 years ago, the prosecutor told
us that the kid being charged with something called “felony Murder”
actually had not, himself, committed any crime at all, and therefore would
we have a hard time convicting him of this? Many of us said, yes we would,
and we were excused…
 
pablope said:
Hi, all…if called to be in a jury in a trial, what is a Catholic’s responsibility to pass judgement of guilty or not guilty, or is it to stay neutral?

What is the CC teaching in such cases.

pablo
Click to expand...
the role of the jury is to listen to testimony, look at evidence and decide fact. The Catholic does this in all good consience and votes according to the evidence presented and does is best to state the truth according to those facts.

why do you see any conflict or problem?

the jury most definitely does NOT judge human beings, but merely judges evidence and arrives at a decision to the facts of the case.
pablope said:
Thank you all for your responses.

Another question I have is can religious reason, like Catholic teaching be a reason to be excused form serving in a jury panel?
Click to expand...
there is no such Catholic teaching. If you feel that you should be excused from serving on a jury (and throwing the burden of your service onto another citizen) according to any of the reasons applicable in your state, or during the jury selection process, yes in good conscience you can asked to be excused for that reason, but Catholic belief is not one of them. If you are asked directly in a death penalty case if your beliefs would affect your judgement, you can answer that truthfully.

now that I have been called so many times I am almost always excused as soon as I get to the selection process simply because I know too many of the people involved-judge, lawyers and sometimes the parties.
 
BVM_1221 said:
Some states, like California, still have the death penalty. If the proposed case could involve the death sentence, you will be asked if you would vote for it. Just say something to the effect that the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, and you will vote your Catholic conscious:yup:
Click to expand...
Too bad the Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty then eh…
 
CEM5 said:
lol 😛 “nutter”.
Well, it is a valid reason because my conscience could not declare the guilt or innocence of an accused because history has demonstrated that too many times valid evidence (and past crimes if applicable) are not fully disclosed. There have been cases where jurers have found accused guilty, then later it was revealed that the authorities did not disclose pertinent evidence for one reason or another, and the damage to those poor jurers minds is, in my opinion, a crime in itself.
Click to expand...
The jurors have committed no sin and have nothing to repent of or be guilty about, if they have given their honest opinion based on the facts which were known to them. Those who unjustly concealed the facts are the ones who bear the guilt, whether it leads to an innocent man being punished or a guilty man going free.
As a Catholic I do obey the civil laws as they apply to me (obedience to Church first). I serve my country in other ways, and as for accepting jury duty…well, if it goes against one’s conscience, then it is not applicable. There are other people who have no problem with that, however, I have a problem with it, and this does not go against my civil duty.
Click to expand...
May I respectfully suggest that you could perhaps make your conscience better informed by studying what the Church has to say on the matter.
 
please read the CCC on the topic of the death penalty before you exclude yourself on that basis. She allows for the theoretical possibility that in some extreme cases capital punishment may be warranted if there is no other way to protect society from the convicted criminal, but holds the civil authority to a high standard in proving that necessity. But yes you can say I am a Catholic and personally I oppose the death penalty, if you are asked that question in the process.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Because of my own personal sinfulness,
I really do not feel comfortable passing judgment on another human being,
let alone recommending a sentence,
in general.
Click to expand...
As Puzzleannie said, the jury is not “judging” in the sense of judging the state of one’s soul, which only God can do, but judging the facts of the matter using our intelligence, which Christ and His Church tell us we **must **do in many situations every day.
Now, if we are talking about a particularly barbaric crime,
such as what happened to Nicole Brown Simpson (OJ’s ex wife),
I could probably bring myself to serve on such a jury without too much
qualms of conscience.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying you would prejudge an accused man as guilty before hearing the evidence, simply beacsue he has been charged with a barbaric crime. In which case you ought not be on the jury.

Personally the one dread I have about jury duty is that I might be called in a barbaric murder or rape case, and would have to look at and think about the nauseating evidence every day for weeks on end. I’d have no problem sitting on any other type of case.
But I have been summoned to Jury Duty several times, and
never got picked. One time over 17 years ago, the prosecutor told
us that the kid being charged with something called “felony Murder”
actually had not, himself, committed any crime at all, and therefore would
we have a hard time convicting him of this? Many of us said, yes we would,
and we were excused…
Click to expand...
:confused: You’re saying that the prosecutor** knew** that the youth was innocent, but was going ahead with the prosecution anyway? Why would he do that?
 
**You’re saying that the prosecutor knew that the youth was innocent, but was going ahead with the prosecution anyway? Why would he do that? **

The prosecutor was a she, incidentally.
The prosecutor told us, after first asking us how many of us regularly attended church.
What she told us, was that the youth was being charged with something
called “felony Murder.” She said that he was not being charged with actually killing anybody. She said that for Felony Murder, he didn’t have to kill anyone, he didn’t have to participate personally in the robbery, nor even be inside the store when the robbery took place. Basically, all this kid had to do under this ridiculous law was
be sitting out in the parking lot in the backseat of the car which was driven or occupied by one or more of the robbers. And for that, they could send him away for Life.
I’m sorry, but you could never, ever prove to me that his mere presence in the backseat of a car means that he was “in on” a robbery and/or murder. He was an underage kid from the ghetto, the other guys were older. Lots of those kids end up simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I’ll give you another example of something legally Obscene:
Yesterday, Miami Dade Judge Milton Hirsch dismissed drug possession charges against a number of defendants. Why? Because the 2002 law that they were charged under,
says that they are guilty of a crime EVEN IF THEY DID NOT KNOW that another person had put contraband into their backpacks!!!
So one is guilty of DOING a crime, even if they had no knowledge nor intention whatsoever of doing any such thing deliberately.
What a wicked, evil, malicious and Diabolical Law.
And the State Attorney’s Office is APPEALING the Judge’s righteous decision, which
I think says a LOT about them: THEY evidently WANT to put people away who had or have NO intention nor awareness whatsoever of doing anything wrong. THAT is FILTHY. THAT is SATANIC.
By the way, this Law exists, I heard, ONLY in
Florida, not in ANY of the other 49 states.
 
You seem to be saying you would prejudge an accused man as guilty before hearing the evidence, simply beacsue he has been charged with a barbaric crime. In which case you ought not be on the jury.

Where did I say I would prejudge an accused man?
Good grief, that’s not what I meant at all.
I’m saying that in all conscience I can honestly say that
I would never ever do such a thing under any circumstances.
Moreover, I don’t think that such a crime was committed in a moment of
weakness (whoever did it). They had to a) get a knife or knives,
b) bring it with them to the scene, c) wait there on the property
stalking the victim(s), d) carry out the act in the most brutal manner
imaginable.

But I was once on a jury pool for a man accused of molesting an underage girl.
I knew that I could not fairly judge the evidence against this man, or for this man,
because I had known someone who had been abused. I told the judge that, in her chambers, and I was excused. I was afraid I might misjudge the evidence against an innocent man because of personal bias.
Also, I’ve read enough newspaper articles and internet articles to
KNOW, full-well, that prosecutors ROUTINELY try to suppress
evidence of Innocence, and often succeed at this wicked endeavor, on legal
technicalities. They want to win at all costs, a number of them, no matter how many
lives they destroy. How can a jury fairly evaluate evidence, when exculpatory
evidence is suppressed?
I’m sorry, but I can’t be party to such things.
 
People are called upon to made judgements all the time. It is inescapable. Parents judge the actions of the children. And they should. They judge the suitability of their friends. They judge whether or not a child has done something wrong. They judge whether an office seeker is worthy of the office before voting.

U.S. citizens are guaranteed judgment by a jury of their peers. So juries are important.

As to felony murder, it can be similar to being an accessory to a crime. You need not have committed the actual murder to be guilty of it, if you otherwise partook, planned, or helped with it.

But, in this case, it’s good that you were excused, since you had already judged the defendant to be innocent before hearing the evidence. The defense attorney would have liked to have you on the jury, but the prosecutor wouldn’t, and either one can excuse a potential juror.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top