Jury Duty

[Paidion]

There is indeed an apparent contradiction between Genesis 9:5, and Matthew 5:38-41. I know of no better resolution, than understanding the latter to be a rule of conduct for individuals, and the former for governing officials.

A god whose law for individuals is diametrically opposite to his law for governing officials, would appear to be schizophrenic! I am sure this characterization does not apply to the God who actually exists.

I would see the former as a concession to a group of people who would otherwise would have required two eyes for an eye. The rule did not reflect God's wishes at all, but rather was given to limit the extreme form of vengeance which fallen, unregenerated, humanity tends to exact.

The latter, given through Christ, expressed the Father's true heart! For Christ Himself is the expression (logos) of the Father. It is He who revealed the Father's true will, to mankind.

[Sean]

There is indeed an apparent contradiction between Genesis 9:5, and Matthew 5:38-41. I know of no better resolution, than understanding the latter to be a rule of conduct for individuals, and the former for governing officials.

A god whose law for individuals is diametrically opposite to his law for governing officials, would appear to be schizophrenic! I am sure this characterization does not apply to the God who actually exists.

I would see the former as a concession to a group of people who would otherwise would have required two eyes for an eye. The rule did not reflect God's wishes at all, but rather was given to limit the extreme form of vengeance which fallen, unregenerated, humanity tends to exact.

The latter, given through Christ, expressed the Father's true heart! For Christ Himself is the expression (logos) of the Father. It is He who revealed the Father's true will, to mankind.

Then what did Paul mean when he said this?

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
Rom 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Rom 13:5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.
Rom 13:6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing.

[Sean]

I had a Christian friend who was dismissed from jury duty after telling the attorneys that he could not in good conscience consider probation for a particular crime. Realizing that unfair charges are often brought and that mitigating factors and signs of repentence, etc., can be involved, I questioned him whether he really meant that as "an absolute" or whether there were circumstances or strength of evidence / reliability of witnesses, etc. that mightn't give him reason to consider such a penalty. I suggested that a Christian jury ought to be the most "just" of all juries, and that the "just" thing to do might actually require that we never take any particular penalty "off the table" before hearing the facts, etc. In fact, my suggestion would be that a Christian might be more likely to need to respond unfavorably to a question of whether a particular crime "required" a particular judgment than the contrary.

Anyway, it got me thinking...

What is the role or responsibility of a Christian on a jury? Initially, perhaps, we should at least render unto Caesar and follow the law requiring that we participate. The next question, though, is what standard is appropriate (assuming the accused is a non-Christian)? Is it right to use God's justice as the standard? or should we follow the law of the land, so to speak, in determining justice in the courts?

Is it the case that the jury actually determines what sentence someone should get? I was under the impression that the jury is to determine the guilt or innocence based on the facts presented in the case. Then the laws already on the books determine the sentence guidelines, followed by a judge determining the final verdict depending on the circumstances. What if you consider the person guilty but the punishment to be unjust? Wouldn't you have to break you oath as a juror to uphold what I guess could be called God's justice? Or do you go ahead and render your guilty vote even if the punishment to be unjust?

[Paidion]

I would say the "Joe Blow" does not demonstrate repentance merely by turning away from theft. He would have demonstrated repentance if he returned to the bank, and made restitution.

Not necessarily so. The repentant Joe also realized that he had responsibilities to provide for his family. Had he made restitution more than 20 years ago when he repented, the bank would have reported him to the police; he would have been imprisoned and his family would have suffered.

[mikew]

In addition to Homer's thought, I would like to add that the knowledge of receiving a certain punishment serves the purpose of providing a deterrent for anyone who contemplates committing a crime. Thus, potential victims of future crimes are protected via the existence of a deterrent. For example,

I'm not aware of any reliable means by which a judge or juror could know for sure whether a criminal had repented. A persons thoughts, and existence of true repentance, are something known between himself and God alone. If judges do not apply penalties when they see evidence of repentance, surely then all unrepentant criminals will make every effort to display the evidence those judging are looking for. This undermines the ability of law to deter crime.

Retributive justice, of course, is not limited to Moses - do you believe this also is not part of God's "law"?

When I think of retribution, the idea comes to mind of a revenge or retaliation or severe punishment. The scripture provides a balancing or equity concept. If you steal a bicycle, you return that bike and then provide the owner with a second bike. So instead of getting something free, the thief has to buy that item and give it away.
But in the example you gave about murder, the only exchange is a life for a life. In a sense this is less than equitable, because the life of the victim was not restored. But the justice is better than the idea of killing the whole family -- a punishment that would affect the innocent people -- but some people may desire this in order to cause a fear factor. But such fear factor would then no longer be justice.

[mikew]

Is it the case that the jury actually determines what sentence someone should get? I was under the impression that the jury is to determine the guilt or innocence based on the facts presented in the case. Then the laws already on the books determine the sentence guidelines, followed by a judge determining the final verdict depending on the circumstances. What if you consider the person guilty but the punishment to be unjust? Wouldn't you have to break you oath as a juror to uphold what I guess could be called God's justice? Or do you go ahead and render your guilty vote even if the punishment to be unjust?

There ought not be an oath except maybe to the state constitution. The obligation is to the people not to the court or the judge. I guess a conflict could arise in becoming a juror when an oath is "required." Do you rejecting signing an oath that could be cause you to act against your conscience and get rejected off the jury? Alternately, do you sign or swear an oath that would permit you on the jury and allow possible true justice? Or do you sign or swear an oath and follow that to the possible demise of freedom?

[thrombomodulin]

A god whose law for individuals is diametrically opposite to his law for governing officials, would appear to be schizophrenic! I am sure this characterization does not apply to the God who actually exists.

I disagree, for I do not share the assumption that men in different positions, cannot have different roles and responsibilities. For example, even Jesus himself did not consider his role to be that of a judge



Or elsewhere, by releasing Peter from prison, God himself has resisted the evil men who arrested him. Hence, God's own actions are not abiding by his commands to men in Matthew 5:38ff.

Is it the case that the jury actually determines what sentence someone should get?

In a civil trial yes, for example the jury is able to choose the numerical value of a financial settlement. In a criminal trial, the jury declares whether the defendant is or is not guilty and a judge sets the penalty according to sentencing guidelines. It is correct that the jury is given the task of judging what particulars are true or false and hence establishes the "facts" around which the case is based.

What if you consider the person guilty but the punishment to be unjust?

Then the juror should declare "not guilty". See "Jury Nullification". As a juror is not acting as an agent of the state, this procedure is the last main defense against government tyranny.

The repentant Joe also realized that he had responsibilities to provide for his family.

So then are you saying that one's responsibility to provide for the family exceeds the right of other people to have their own property? If so, then does it not follow that no crime is committed at all in stealing from one who is more wealthy than yourself (if such theft alleviates "family suffering")? If so, how much provision is a family entitled to attain by theft?

[Paidion]

So then are you saying that one's responsibility to provide for the family exceeds the right of other people to have their own property? If so, then does it not follow that no crime is committed at all in stealing from one who is more wealthy than yourself (if such theft alleviates "family suffering")? If so, how much provision is a family entitled to attain by theft?

No, I am not saying this; nor am I suggesting that it is okay to steal in order to provide for one's family.

What I am saying, is that Joe Bloe had fears about making immediate restitution after his repentance, fears that he would lose his job and be unable to provide for his family. He may have had it in mind to make total restitution at some point, but not at that point because of the negative consequences.

I am also saying, that if there had been an adequate restorative justice system in place, then Joe would have made immediate restitution after repentance. He refrained from making such restitution out of fear of a useless prison term, and of losing his job and being unable to provide for his family.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

I suppose such a case could show repentance. Nevertheless, it would be difficult in practice to establish such facts in any court. Being that it is impossible to prove a negative - that one did not steal, a judge would not know a person who had repentant and refrained from steal as opposed to one who continued to do so but was clever enough to avoid getting caught. Further, whether or not "joe" had or did not have at times other opportunities to steal would be difficult or impossible to establish in a court.

Peter

[darinhouston]

Is it the case that the jury actually determines what sentence someone should get? I was under the impression that the jury is to determine the guilt or innocence based on the facts presented in the case. Then the laws already on the books determine the sentence guidelines, followed by a judge determining the final verdict depending on the circumstances. What if you consider the person guilty but the punishment to be unjust? Wouldn't you have to break you oath as a juror to uphold what I guess could be called God's justice? Or do you go ahead and render your guilty vote even if the punishment to be unjust?

In Texas, a criminal defendant can ask that the jury do the sentencing in all but "Capital" cases. Sentencing "guidelines" that the judge is required to follow are typically just a Federal court thing.