What is the CC teaching about being in a jury?

[pablope]

Too bad the Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty then eh…

Thank you all for your responses…and I find the discussion enlightening.

Well, for my JD experience.

I got called to jury panel and picked for the initial 16 to be screened. …but was excluded since I knew the judge personally, played golf with him. I said I could not be unbiased as I could see you favoring one party or another with your rulings, in other words, I could not see you (the judge) as being neutral. So I got kicked out.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**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. **

Actually, I hadn’t judged him either way.
But from what the prosecutor described to us, I was sure there
was no way she could have proven that he was actively involved, short
of having him on videotape with the others planning the robbery, or something like that.
Also off-putting was the
way she asked us (the jury-pool) how many of us regularly attended church.
When a whole bunch of hands went up, she
had what seemed like a very uncomfortable look on her face. That didn’t sit well with me.
Why would she ask a question like that??

 

[Erich]

I got called to jury panel and picked for the initial 16 to be screened. …but was excluded

I was once called for jury duty, where I was #39 (of 40) in the juror pool – and therefore reasonably certain I wasn’t going to get picked for the jury.

I don’t remember any of the questions we were asked during voir dire, but I do remember that the case involved a couple (both lawyers) suing their homeowner’s association over something I thought was relatively minor – at a time when a local news story about a constable showing up at an elderly woman’s door with a court order to evict her was still fresh in everyone’s mind. (It turned out that her homeowners association had sold the house out from under her because she owed $876 in dues. The woman paid cash for her home and had lived there for 15 years; the homeowners association said she ignored notices they sent telling her she was behind with her dues. But apparently many of the notices had been wrongly addressed to her long deceased husband, who had never even lived in the house.)

I sat quietly the whole time, but what I wanted to do was stand up and say, “Hmm, lawyers and homeowner associations… two of the most respected institutions in the city! What is this world coming to?”

 

[Petergee]

**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.

Sorry, but the fact that in your opinion a particluar law is excessively harsh, does not remove your duty to serve on a jury and judge whether, on the evidence presented, the youth was actually sitting in the robbers’ car whilst the robery took place.

And you should be much more cautious about freely using the words “Satanic” and “Diabolical”.

There are actually many laws which are called “statutory offences” for which there is no requirement that the offender deliberately intended to do anything wrong or even knew that it was being done. There would be chaos in the judicial system and elsewhere if we didn’t have such laws.

 

[Petergee]

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.

OK, sorry for misunderstanding you.

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.

The jury is not asked to fairly evaluate all of the evidence that exists and to declare absolutely on the accused’s guilt or innocence. They are asked only to evaluate the evidence that is presented to them and decide whether it is enough to persuade them beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

 

[Rosella]

To clarify: the death penalty is not prohibited by Catholic teaching. It is to be applied with great discretion and only when suitable to the crime.

A convicted murderer is not an “innocent” person and society has a right to enforce its laws and protect citizens who would be harmed by such a person.

St. Thomas Aquinas even made the point that the death penalty may have redemptive value for the criminal.

 

[StrawberryJam]

**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. **

Actually, I hadn’t judged him either way.
But from what the prosecutor described to us, I was sure there
was no way she could have proven that he was actively involved, short
of having him on videotape with the others planning the robbery, or something like that.
Also off-putting was the
way she asked us (the jury-pool) how many of us regularly attended church.
When a whole bunch of hands went up, she
had what seemed like a very uncomfortable look on her face. That didn’t sit well with me.
Why would she ask a question like that??

Because there are some that get away with that type of behavior in the courtroom.

Not supposed to happen, but it does. Just like church, with the bad guys there.
Not supposed to happen, but it does.
\

 

[kelvinf]

To clarify: the death penalty is not prohibited by Catholic teaching. It is to be applied with great discretion and only when suitable to the crime.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

**If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”**

A convicted murderer is not an “innocent” person and society has a right to enforce its laws and protect citizens who would be harmed by such a person.

And today, this can effectively be done without recourse to the death penalty.

St. Thomas Aquinas even made the point that the death penalty may have redemptive value for the criminal.

Today, the shepherds find the death penalty absolutely uncalled-for.

 

[Petergee]

And today, this can effectively be done without recourse to the death penalty.

That is your opinion (which I respect as such and tend to agree with).
It is not the teaching of the Church, which states merely that, in those states which have sufficient other "possibilities for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Today, the shepherds find the death penalty absolutely uncalled-for.

No they do not, if by “shepherds” you mean the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has never and presumably will never declare that the death penalty is absolutely uncalled for.