• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Lovebug said:
Now we are getting down to the issue at hand. No twelve people think alike, they represent checks and balances, they bring their live experiences, none of which are the same, to the table.
Spot on.
Click to expand...

True, but if I was being tried I would object most strongly to any creationists on the jury. If they believe in creationism in spite of all the evidence then I would not trust their judgement. Some of these people imagine that god talks to them. I wouldn't want them to imagine that god had told them that I was guilty and my defense was the work of the devil.
 
zyzygy said:
True, but if I was being tried I would object most strongly to any creationists on the jury. If they believe in creationism in spite of all the evidence then I would not trust their judgement. Some of these people imagine that god talks to them. I wouldn't want them to imagine that god had told them that I was guilty and my defense was the work of the devil.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
matchlight said:
This is silly from the beginning. The notion that any law excluding jurors on the basis of their religious beliefs could be squared with the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Click to expand...

If it was simply an assessment of if a person could understand what constitutes evidence would that be OK?
 
zyzygy said:
True, but if I was being tried I would object most strongly to any creationists on the jury. If they believe in creationism in spite of all the evidence then I would not trust their judgement. Some of these people imagine that god talks to them. I wouldn't want them to imagine that god had told them that I was guilty and my defense was the work of the devil.
Click to expand...

depending upon your crime, pure logic may not be to your best advantage, compassion and ability to empathize might be
 
Tim the plumber said:
If it was simply an assessment of if a person could understand what constitutes evidence would that be OK?
Click to expand...

It has always surprised me that there is not even a basic intelligence test for jurors. You have to pass a test to drive a car but you can send somebody to prison and in some cases to their death and no test involved. It seems rather odd.
 
~SAL said:
depending upon your crime, pure logic may not be to your best advantage, compassion and ability to empathize might be
Click to expand...

True as well. This is a tricky subject. I was talking about the hard core religious delusionauts. As I said, the mildly religious would not be a problem.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?

Just going by the standard of thinking shown on this section of the forum. The constant calling black white or redefining words to avoid the bleeding obvious point of a bible story.

Could you trust the judgement of a person who claims to have shown evidence of racism in evolutionary theory when clearly he has not. He has been repeatedly challenged to say which post this evidence was in and just say "I have done it!".

Am I being unkind? Are the vast majority of Christians just ignorant of actually thinking about their faith or and so have avoided all the obvious mental problems of knowing that they are following a load of drivel or do we just get the stupid one on here?
Click to expand...

We couldn't get away with discrimination in our jury system, so the vetting process is about as close as you'e going to get. Your going to get religious hacks, radical feminists, radcial right-wingers and all other kinds of social anarchists. A jury, cannot use any other form of information - from any other source whatsoever in its decision process. even though we know that people do what they want anyway, the process has to remain as simnple and as crystal clear as we can make it, or just throw it all away.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The question I pose is should people have to understand what evidence is and what is not evidence in a court case to be competent to sit on a jury. And here I'm not talking about the legal rules of evidence, I mean real world evidence.
Click to expand...
`
Correct me if I'm wrong but back when the US Constitution was drawn up, most of our citizens were agrarian and not necessarily thought of by our forefathers as being very educated....still, they indirectly provided for a "jury of peers", to wit:

"While courts do not have to ensure that a defendant's race, gender, or age group is represented in the jury pool, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts may not remove a potential juror based solely on his or her race or gender. Below, you'll find an explanation of the jury selection process and the constitutional limitations placed on it." - source​
 
here is an example of voir dire

“Where an adversary wishes to exclude a juror because of bias, …it is the adversary seeking exclusion who must demonstrate, through questioning, that the potential juror lacks impartiality.” Witt, 469 U.S. at 423.

Each defendant is entitled to full opportunity to face the prospective jurors, make diligent inquiry into their fitness to serve, and to exercise his right to challenge those who are objectionable to him. State v Thomas, 294 N.C. 105, 115 (1978)


The purpose of voir dire and the exercise of challenges “is to eliminate extremes of partiality and to assure both…[parties]…that the persons chosen to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused will reach that decision solely upon the evidence produced at trial.” State v. Conner, 335 N.C. 618, 440 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1994).


Jurors, like all of us, have natural inclinations and favorites, and they sometimes at least on a subconscious level, give the benefit of the doubt to their favorites. So jury selection, in a real sense, is an opportunity for counsel to see if there is anything in a juror’s yesterday or today that would make it difficult for that juror to view the facts not in an abstract sense, but in a particular case, dispassionately. *State v Hedgepath, 66 N.C. App. 390 (1984).
 
zyzygy said:
True as well. This is a tricky subject. I was talking about the hard core religious delusionauts. As I said, the mildly religious would not be a problem.
Click to expand...
agreed, it is a super tricky subject because you are "hoping" your lawyer understands psychology well enough to pick those people who will see you in the most favorable light and allow you the most leeway...it is so subjective that there is a whole part of psychology dedicated to it... the art of forensic psychology
 
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago...I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
-


"The humorist who invented trial by jury played a colossal practical joke upon the world, but since we have the system we ought to try and respect it. A thing which is not thoroughly easy to do, when we reflect that by command of the law a criminal juror must be an intellectual vacuum, attached to a melting heart and perfectly macaronian bowels of compassion."

Mark Twain
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I think this thread rather clearly proves that being an atheist is no guarantee of rational thinking. If anything, those who reject the wisdom of God, and substitute for it the foolishness of men, are a greater threat to rational decision-making than the worst of theists.
Click to expand...

Coming from a Mormon, that is just hilarious.
 
We are to be tried by a jury of our peers. Religious people are our peers as much as anyone else. But I hear ya.

Nobody wants to be judged by Taliban Lite.
 
Paleocon said:
It's a group of trolls.
Click to expand...

No, they make a very good point. Imaginary beings should be kept out of courtrooms, but if some are allowed in then all should be allowed in.
 
zyzygy said:
No, they make a very good point. Imaginary beings should be kept out of courtrooms, but if some are allowed in then all should be allowed in.
Click to expand...

They're trolls. Everyone knows they're trolls. It's not a matter of dispute.
 
Paleocon said:
They're trolls. Everyone knows they're trolls. It's not a matter of dispute.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that some people say that a holy book is true because the holy book is true seems quite sensible to me. Perhaps all believers in holy books should be excluded from jury service and juries would be composed of clear headed atheists.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Is it time to not have religious people on juries?
Click to expand...

Just going by the standard of thinking shown on this section of the forum. The constant calling black white or redefining words to avoid the bleeding obvious point of a bible story.

Could you trust the judgement of a person who claims to have shown evidence of racism in evolutionary theory when clearly he has not. He has been repeatedly challenged to say which post this evidence was in and just say "I have done it!".






Am I being unkind? Are the vast majority of Christians just ignorant of actually thinking about their faith or and so have avoided all the obvious mental problems of knowing that they are following a load of drivel or do we just get the stupid one on here?
Click to expand...




How would you keep religious people off of juries without violating the USA's Constitution?

Explain that, if you can.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Suffice to say that I would never want important decisions taken by the like of the most prolific pro religious poster on this forum.
Click to expand...

I would not want important decisions that affect me to be made by those so foolish and arrogant as to deny the power and authority of God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom