Religion and Jury Duty

[_malkie]

To whose advantage is it for a member of a jury to be religious - especially a Christian? Or is it of any advantage at all?

Do you think that a religious person is more likely to be a "good" juror?

What makes someone a good juror?

I'm asking because of a disagreement I have had with someone over the benefits of having Christians serve on juries, rather than people with no religious affiliation.

[_stemelbow]

I have no particular expertise here at all, and I'm sure it'll show in my response. But, I can imagine that some people would be good jurors and some would not be good at all. Some Christians would be good, some would be awful. Some atheists would be good and others would not be good. I don't think religion has anything to do with it.

[_malkie]

I have no particular expertise here at all, and I'm sure it'll show in my response. But, I can imagine that some people would be good jurors and some would not be good at all. Some Christians would be good, some would be awful. Some atheists would be good and others would not be good. I don't think religion has anything to do with it.

That's my thinking on the matter too.

Any thoughts about why, and what characteristics an ideal juror would have?

[_malkie]

I don't know if it is bad form to reach into page 2 to resurrect a dead, unpopular thread, especially of one's own making, but I guess someone will tell me. OTOH, perhaps everyone will just ignore it, and let it fade away again.

Anyway, I just came across something on this topic today on the blog of John McIntire, a Baltimore Sun editor: Not a venireman this time.

He says: "Years ago, Clarence Darrow wrote an article for Esquire on the science of picking a jury that relied on the crudest of stereotypes. Defense attorneys should pick Catholics and Jews, he wrote, because they are emotional and easily swayed. He may have been puckish—avoid Presbyterians, he advised, because they know right from wrong but seldom find anything right—but he knew his craft.".

Here, I believe, is the article McIntire was referring to.

by the way, Darrow was on the team of lawyers that won the case of State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial"). Looks like an interesting fellow.

Before the thread gets kicked to "Off Topic", I'd like to point out that I was planning to tie in the LDS/Mormon religion, had the thread continued.

So, let me do so - do you think that an active believing Mormon would be a better or worse juror than an atheist or agnostic? Or neither better nor worse per se?

And why? - what is the intersection between your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and the ability to fairly judge a case in which you are a juror?

[_Bond James Bond]

I don't know if it is bad form to reach into page 2 to resurrect a dead, unpopular thread, especially of one's own making, but I guess someone will tell me. OTOH, perhaps everyone will just ignore it, and let it fade away again.

I'll allow it!

Anyway, I just came across something on this topic today on the blog of John McIntire, a Baltimore Sun editor: Not a venireman this time.

He says: "Years ago, Clarence Darrow wrote an article for Esquire on the science of picking a jury that relied on the crudest of stereotypes. Defense attorneys should pick Catholics and Jews, he wrote, because they are emotional and easily swayed. He may have been puckish—avoid Presbyterians, he advised, because they know right from wrong but seldom find anything right—but he knew his craft.".

Here, I believe, is the article McIntire was referring to.

by the way, Darrow was on the team of lawyers that won the case of State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial"). Looks like an interesting fellow.

Before the thread gets kicked to "Off Topic", I'd like to point out that I was planning to tie in the LDS/Mormon religion, had the thread continued.

So, let me do so - do you think that an active believing Mormon would be a better or worse juror than an atheist or agnostic? Or neither better nor worse per se?

And why? - what is the intersection between your religious affiliation, or lack thereof, and the ability to fairly judge a case in which you are a juror?

While jury selection is often a crap shoot (which is why juries are questioned about their knowledge of subjects, feelings about particular issues, etc) you might be able to draw some decent conclusions about what demographics are wanted to get a certain jury. A defense lawyer in a tobacco case obviously wants libertarians while the plaintiff would want people who are liberal and want to coerce that behavior (or people who had family die of tobacco products). It's all based on what each lawyer wants.

[_malkie]

...

While jury selection is often a crap shoot (which is why juries are questioned about their knowledge of subjects, feelings about particular issues, etc) you might be able to draw some decent conclusions about what demographics are wanted to get a certain jury. A defense lawyer in a tobacco case obviously wants libertarians while the plaintiff would want people who are liberal and want to coerce that behavior (or people who had family die of tobacco products). It's all based on what each lawyer wants.

Thanks, Bond!

Any thoughts on the religion issue - esp. Mormon-related?

Anyway, ideally, as officers of the court, shouldn't all lawyers, prosecution or defence, want the same thing - "good" jurors? And shouldn't they be able to agree on a definition of a good juror?

Would a verdict rendered by an unbiased jury not be superior to a verdict rendered by a jury consisting of those that the defence thought would be biased in one direction plus those that the prosecution thought would be biased in the other? And that each lawyer managed to "get past" the other?

[_Mephitus]

I actualy did jury duty 2 years ago (on my F*&^NG birthday no less...). The lawyers of both sides really wanted me because i had indicated that a family member (mother) had a long term dibilitating injury. (severe arthritic joints) The case was about a guy who was hit in a car accident that (after entirely too much and poor medical intervention) left him with a very bad back.

While on duty, i did everything i could to try and keep any personal bias one way or the other out of the situation at hand. While i understood what it meant to be physicaly limited like that, i didn't want my personal feelings to cloud why i should side one way or another. It was a conscious effort for me too, as a decision either way would have extremely far-reaching implications for someone.

Back when i was Mormon, i could say that i would have probly been more emotionaly based on how i saw things rather than logically weighing the situation. Which could have affected my judgement of the situation. I can see why for some things that choosing a religious person over non-religuous or even atheist could affect a case. Its about judgement styles of feelings vs logic.

(I can post the details about the case if someone really wants)

[_asbestosman]

I hear that one ideal is to have a jury of one's peers. If that is so, then it would be a good idea to have some Christians on a jury if one is Christian, and non-Christians if one is not. I don't completely understand the priciple though. Perhaps the ideal also includes a mix of non-Christian jurors for a Christian defendant. I'm not sure what the ideal proportion of each would be under this paradigm--perhaps one mimicking the sort of environment the defendant is in.

[_Yahoo Bot]

To whose advantage is it for a member of a jury to be religious - especially a Christian? Or is it of any advantage at all?

Do you think that a religious person is more likely to be a "good" juror?

What makes someone a good juror?

I'm asking because of a disagreement I have had with someone over the benefits of having Christians serve on juries, rather than people with no religious affiliation.

My main argument in my on-line essay is that Christians shouldn't lie to get off of jury service, because the system needs God-fearing people on juries.

Now, you may disagree that the system needs God-fearing people on the jury, but my main point is more than lies to get off of service is just fundamentally wrong.

[_malkie]

To whose advantage is it for a member of a jury to be religious - especially a Christian? Or is it of any advantage at all?

Do you think that a religious person is more likely to be a "good" juror?

What makes someone a good juror?

I'm asking because of a disagreement I have had with someone over the benefits of having Christians serve on juries, rather than people with no religious affiliation.

My main argument in my on-line essay is that Christians shouldn't lie to get off of jury service, because the system needs God-fearing people on juries.

Now, you may disagree that the system needs God-fearing people on the jury, but my main point is more than lies to get off of service is just fundamentally wrong.

I agree that "lies to get off of service is just fundamentally wrong" - jury duty is a civic responsibility, and should be taken seriously.

I totally disagree that "the system needs God-fearing people on the jury", unless you can demonstrate that God-fearing people make "better" jurors.

To do so you I think that you would need to define the requirements to be a good juror, and show that God-fearing people meet the requirements better than non-God-fearing people do. I don't think that you can do so.

I would be rather worried about the characteristics of a legal system that favoured God-fearing jurors, judges, witnesses, lawyers, or other participants over non-God-fearing ones.

I would similarly worry about judges or lawyers that favoured God-fearing participants.

Am I missing something here? Have my own biases blinded me to the advantages of having God-fearing folks act as jurors etc?