Would you consent to being on a jury that will decide whether someone will live or die?

[AllSeasons]

I just read a news article about the Jodi Arias trial. I haven’t been following the story, but reading the article prompted the question. As a Catholic, would you consent to being on a jury that will decide whether someone will live or die? Personally, I’d have a lot of reservations about it.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

I would not. I strongly disagree with the death penalty. The wonderful thing about jury duty is that if you have religious/moral reasons for being unable to do it, they will either reassign you to another case or decide that you have fulfilled your one day/one trail obligation.

 

[jjtc]

Absolutely not…

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I would. If you only leave it to people that see the death penalty as a form of revenge, or as something that can be used as a just punishment even if there are other ways to keep the aggressor from hurting other people, then most people will be sent to be killed.
I don’t know if they would let me be on it, though, since I do believe what the Church teaches and would apply it to the case (for example, in the Arias case, I know already I would vote against it. The only cases in which I would think long and hard about it, although not necessarily would I automatically vote in favor, would be a case like one for Osama Bin Laden, if it would have taken place. I would have to evaluate whether they could still do a lot of harm to people from jail.)

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."68

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I served on a murder trial jury, and I was the only one who recommended the longest possible sentence. However, it was not the death penalty. I do not believe that I could serve on a possible death sentence trial because I am not sure I could be objective about that sentence. I do believe that it is sometimes the only way to deal with horrendous criminals, but I don’t think that I could personally live with knowing I had voted for someone to be executed. That is for God, not me.

 

[Fairwinds]

I would, they’re never let me on one, but I would. in the right kind of case and with a certain kind of defendant, I’d vote for the DP because of whatever the handwave prattle you hear about imprisoning someone so he isn’t a future threat, he’s going to commit future crimes.

 

[sojo]

Absolutely not. I do not believe in the morality of the death penalty in this country. I support the opinion our Church that it is only ethical when there is absolutely no other way to keep society safe. Our prisons are more than adequate to keep us safe from 99.9999% of the criminals in this country.

Further, to think our prisons cannot keep us safe from a 120 lb female… ludicrous. Life in prison is sufficient for such a criminal and it saves us money over the death penalty appeals as a bonus.

I am firmly pro-life, any life - pre-born, elderly, sick, disabled, criminal. All life is sacred and belongs and remains in the hands of God, not man.

 

[Usige]

Weather I would or not is immaterial. I vehemently oppose the death penalty so would never return a guilty verdict if I knew it was on the table. Because of that and the fact that I believe both sides need to prove guilt or innocence (I don’t assume not guilty in cases of violence) I would have both the defense and prosecution tossing me off a jury quicker than you can say I object.

 

[Fairwinds]

Weather I would or not is immaterial. I vehemently oppose the death penalty so would never return a guilty verdict if I knew it was on the table. Because of that and the fact that I believe both sides need to prove guilt or innocence (I don’t assume not guilty in cases of violence) I would have both the defense and prosecution tossing me off a jury quicker than you can say I object.

you’d never make it to the jury panel, there are written questions to weed out people like you.

but if you did, the government would bounce you, unless you lied about the extent of your opposition. decision on the DP follows a verdict on guilt, its normally a second, or maybe even a third stage.

as defense counsel, I’d bounce you because you think the defendant needs to prove innocence. in the USA, innocence is presumed.

its a good dodge though. you’re not the first to try to bail on jury duty that way. but it won’t always work, so probably back to the pool for you.

 

[Fairwinds]

… Our prisons are more than adequate to keep us safe from 99.9999% of the criminals in this country…

what do you base that figure on? I mean, apart from your opinion.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Personally no. I am against the death penalty no matter what the crime may be. I am aware that The RCC do accept it, but only when it is impossible to make sure that the prisoner won’t escape. No prison is 100% escape-proof, but close enough.

And why I am against it. I believe that we all need a chance to be forgiven if not by the community then by God. That is a thing we all have a right to, and a death sentence may hinder us. I also think that only God has the right to decide who dies and who live. It is simply not up to us. Thank God the death penalty is gone from Europe.

And about a jury? Hmm…twelve [honest] men/women…I don’t think it is a good idea, anymore. It is better to establish if the accused person is guilty based upon technical evidence and eye-witness, not by any other system. We all know that the more power we give to someone the more they ask for. And last, how many have been killed because they have listen to a smooth-talking solicitor and made up they mind more or less totally leaning on what he/she say, and how. If we say no to abortion, we must say no to death penalty. To be honest, they are not so far apart, are they?

 

[mountee]

I am not sure that I could get out of serving because of that, having been called to duty 3x they don’t give much room for asking to get out. But, I would certainly make it clear when I was interviewed that I would never vote for the death penalty… I am presuming one attorney would want me and one wouldn’t.

 

[Fairwinds]

Personally no. I am against the death penalty no matter what the crime may be. I am aware that The RCC do accept it, but only when it is impossible to make sure that the prisoner won’t escape. No prison is 100% escape-proof, but close enough. …

its not escape that’s the problem, its that convicted narcotics gang bosses and in one case a convicted terrorist have been able to communicate through family members and attorneys to the outside to order killings and run the drug distribution networks. the terrorist used his attorney to order riots in Egypt that resulted in additional deaths, and this was in spite of special procedures intended to prevent this from happening.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I would be honest with the lawyers in the up-front interviews.
Often, if the prosecution is pushing for the death penalty they want a jury who would be okay with issuing that punishment… so honesty should often eliminate this issue up-front.
And, regardless of whether you are selected or not, you can still consent to saying “guilty”, but “not for death”… no one can tie your hands into saying something you don’t want to say.

 

[JackieMom]

Yes, I could. I wouldn’t want to - but if called I could do it and return a sentence per what our law calls for. There are so many appeals after a DP case, including an automatic appeal, I don’t think I would have a problem making that choice if it were the appropriate one (per state law.).

 

[Luvz2travel]

I just read a news article about the Jodi Arias trial. I haven’t been following the story, but reading the article prompted the question. As a Catholic, would you consent to being on a jury that will decide whether someone will live or die? Personally, I’d have a lot of reservations about it.

I’m not sure I go back and forth on the death penalty. In reality though I think if you’re called to Jury duty you don’t have a choice you have to serve. I guess I could be wrong but that’s how I always understood it.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’m not sure I go back and forth on the death penalty. In reality though I think if you’re called to Jury duty you don’t have a choice you have to serve. I guess I could be wrong but that’s how I always understood it.

you could get out of serving on a DP case by explaining, at some point you could never vote for the DP. as for getting out of jury duty, that’s easy too.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Yes, I could. I wouldn’t want to - but if called I could do it and return a sentence per what our law calls for. There are so many appeals after a DP case, including an automatic appeal, I don’t think I would have a problem making that choice if it were the appropriate one (per state law.).

Yeah, but what if state law suggests death penalty for reasons that we, as Catholics, should not support? What if we feel (based on a well formed conscience and informed mind) that it would be immoral to sentence this person to death. The law supports abortion, but it doesn’t mean we need to go along with that. We have to follow any just laws, but we need to follow God’s law if society’s law is at odds with His. Another example, HHS mandate. There is the easy way out, just follow and accept the unjust laws to not cause any waves… and then there is the right way. We, as Catholics, have to stop being doormats that go along with the flow to not have to deal with any inconveniences or uncomfortable situations! I would not count on appeals to correct a wrong I am doing, especially if the reason the person should not receive death penalty is a moral one, not a legal one.

That being said, since it seems like there is leeway for the jury to make their decision as to whether or not a person should receive the death penalty, my criteria would be that of the Catholic Church and not the secular criteria. We do not have to follow any immoral laws, and if the law says we should request death penalty for someone when we are sure there are non-lethal ways to protect society from that person, when we truly believe it is not a moral solution, then it is our moral obligation to not vote for death penalty, even if the law would suggest we should.

I must add, honestly I don’t think all of this is so black and white; I don’t really think the law puts the jury in a position where they would find themselves in a corner definitely having to vote for death penalty, although I could definitely be wrong on this. I don’t know if any state has any laws that would force a Catholic jury member to go against his/her faith to sentence someone to death in circumstances where they feel they should not receive this punishment… it doesn’t seem like it to me, but I could be wrong.

 

[Usige]

you’d never make it to the jury panel, there are written questions to weed out people like you.

but if you did, the government would bounce you, unless you lied about the extent of your opposition. decision on the DP follows a verdict on guilt, its normally a second, or maybe even a third stage.

as defense counsel, I’d bounce you because you think the defendant needs to prove innocence. in the USA, innocence is presumed.

its a good dodge though. you’re not the first to try to bail on jury duty that way. but it won’t always work, so probably back to the pool for you.

For me it’s not a dodge. It’s truly how I feel. I completely agree that I am not suitable for the vast majority of juries. I love the study of the law and legal theory, but the practice of law is why I never pursued a JD.

Imagine a gauge with a needle. To the left is 100% guilty, to the right is 100% innocent. US law assumes that a person start with the needle hard over on the right and it is the prosecution that needs to pull that needle to the left to prove guilt. I start in the middle (actually slight toward the right, say 50% innocent). As far as I’m concerned both sides need to work to move that needle. it the prosecution moved the needle 10% into the guilty then the defense needs to move it back at least 11% for me to find the person innocent.

Let me give you an example. The last time I sat for jury selection was for a district court case. There were no pre-selection written questionnaires. After the first 3 people were dismissed (generally because they had police or government ties) the charges were read. First charge domestic violence: needle moved to about 10% guilty. Next charge, 2 counts of aggregated animal cruelty; needle jumped to about 80% guilty [people that commit violent crimes often have a history of animal cruelty]. I was not in the first group called for pre-selection questioning, but the 6 of us who were not called were still in the court room. From the questions you could get a rough idea of each teams strategy. The defense asked questions along the line of “If the supposed victim would not take the stand as a witness how would that impact your decision?” or “Isn’t is possible that people can accidentally leave dangerous chemicals where an animal might get to them?” or “The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt … What do you consider the requirement for reasonable doubt?” All the questions were priming the potential jurors to plant seeds of doubt. By that time I was at about 95% guilty as nothing the defense asked implied anything other than showing doubt.

I watched selection for 5 hours and saw 4 people dismissed. You could tell the people that were trying to get out of jury duty. I was the second to last person brought to the jury. The judge said “You have heard all the types of questions presented, is there anything that you think might have bearing on you as a juror?” I simply said “Based on the charges and what appears to be a defense based on building doubt rather than innocence I do not believe Mr. X could receive a fair verdict from me. As a supporter of the ASPCA and someone that has had a family member shot during a domestic violence dispute I tend to believe Mr. X is guilty and the defense would need to prove his innocence.” The judge told me that the US presumes innocence and I said something along the lines of “I know and respect that, your honor, but I have to assume that the State has a reasonable reason to bring this case to trial. That automatically predisposes my to the belief that their is some level of doubt about the defendants innocence. In cases of violent crime I believe it is safest to assume guilt to keep violent criminals from skipping because the defense can sow seeds of doubt.” The judge then asked both councils if they had an objection to dismissing me before I could “further taint the jury.”

The point being the above is truly how I feel. My statements were not premeditated to avoid jury duty, but I think it is impossible for any person that is impaneled is truly unbiased. I just happen to be honest in recognizing my biases.

 

[JackieMom]

Yeah, but what if state law suggests death penalty for reasons that we, as Catholics, should not support? What if we feel (based on a well formed conscience and informed mind) that it would be immoral to sentence this person to death. The law supports abortion, but it doesn’t mean we need to go along with that. We have to follow any just laws, but we need to follow God’s law if society’s law is at odds with His. Another example, HHS mandate. There is the easy way out, just follow and accept the unjust laws to not cause any waves… and then there is the right way. We, as Catholics, have to stop being doormats that go along with the flow to not have to deal with any inconveniences or uncomfortable situations! I would not count on appeals to correct a wrong I am doing, especially if the reason the person should not receive death penalty is a moral one, not a legal one.

That being said, since it seems like there is leeway for the jury to make their decision as to whether or not a person should receive the death penalty, my criteria would be that of the Catholic Church and not the secular criteria. We do not have to follow any immoral laws, and if the law says we should request death penalty for someone when we are sure there are non-lethal ways to protect society from that person, when we truly believe it is not a moral solution, then it is our moral obligation to not vote for death penalty, even if the law would suggest we should.

I must add, honestly I don’t think all of this is so black and white; I don’t really think the law puts the jury in a position where they would find themselves in a corner definitely having to vote for death penalty, although I could definitely be wrong on this. I don’t know if any state has any laws that would force a Catholic jury member to go against his/her faith to sentence someone to death in circumstances where they feel they should not receive this punishment… it doesn’t seem like it to me, but I could be wrong.

They don’t but if you said you would not vote for a DP sentence under any circumstances, you’d be removed from the jury pool anyway.

I don’t see abortion and the DP as being equally grevious evils, and neither does the Church, and I do think that there are times when the DP is a suitable choice. This is consistent with Catholic teaching, so I think I could sit on that type of jury.