Jury Duty

[darinhouston]

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?

[thrombomodulin]

Darin,

The following verse indicates the duty is to condemn the guilty, and acquit the innocent:



But the more difficult question is which laws may a juror legitimately base his decision on? For example, our government routinely violates the constitution, however, the constitution was written by men who are now dead. Should a juror honor the constitution above or below the laws passed recently by those who are still alive? Perhaps the fact that our rulers swear to uphold the constitution is of some value here.

It has been brought to my attention that the right place to begin may be by asking the question - "who is authorized to create law?" with respect to any particular jurisdiction. Recall that Steve G. has made a case for the authority of scripture, based upon deriving it from the authority of Jesus had delegated to the Apostle's. The same approach ought to apply in discerning Caesars' authority - namely, how much or how little authority has been granted to him by God? As Steve pointed out that the apostle's had been granted only a limited authority, so the view that Caesar has unlimited authority does not seem to be correct.

For example, a strong case based upon scripture and the law of nature has been made that parents have an unalienable right to direct the education of their children to the complete exclusion of the State. The State violates this God given authority of parents by imposing laws pertaining to compulsory financing of education, compulsory attendance, compulsory curriculum, and compulsory teacher certification. A juror should realize the limits of government authority and rule against government where it does not have authority.

Samuel Rutherford (Lex Rex) and John Locke (Treatises of Government) have made an effort to use the scripture, the law of nature, and natural law to address the questions of the limits of government authority. I believe an answer to your question would be found in these works. I would very much like to read these myself, but I have so far been unable to find the time to do so.

[TK]

i believe that if you are seated on the jury you are bound to follow the law of the land, assuming the law is just. i suppose that would involve not showing more or less mercy than the facts of the case would allow. i still think that the movie "12 Angry Men" is an excellent example of how we should act if we ever sit on a jury (the part of henry fonda). if the facts show that the person did the crime, then the jury needs to convict- if not, then no. i dont think it would be a Christian's duty to try to sway a jury if the facts clearly point to acquittal or conviction.

i suppose that if a Christian feels he/she may have difficulty following the law of the land then they should make this known during voire dire. your friend apparently tried to do this, but i agree that he was off base in his reasoning.

TK

[mikew]

Your duty as a juror would be the duty of protecting society.

Jurors are not called to the role as servants of the government,as a means to have the public endorsement of the decisions of leaders. Instead, the juror comes as the one in authority to act of his conscience. In a conviction he should be confident that the the law is just and is justly applied and is proven by facts.

The protection of society involves the requirements to protect the freedom of the general population from improper laws, overzealous prosecutions, and unjustified convictions. The public in general and the man on trial should be protected from violations of such principles of freedom.

The other side of the protection of freedom is to bring justice and safety in accord with the law as necessary to protect the public from harm. So the situation of a juror requires that he be willing to convict upon those violations of law when the case has been properly made against a man that is a threat and has harmed people, but generally the conviction should be made only if the punishment also is reasonable (not too harsh) for the crime.

So membership on a jury would require most attention to the need to protect from an infringement against freedom rather than to try to assure the harshest punishment for any offender. Your friend then erred in the effort to protect freedom.

I do think there is an oddity of placing anyone in a jail or prison except for obvious cases where that guy will be of great harm if not so constrained in his freedom. The scripture never spoke of a prison system so I don't quite understand how a free country has adopted such a system where there is no equity to the one hurt or robbed, as scripture reveals as justice.

[Paidion]

The most common form of "justice" in the world has always been retributive "justice" (which is not really justice at all, but vengeance). Those who advocate retributive punishment hold the position that if you committed the offense you must receive an "appropriate" punishment to "pay" for it. If the person has repented of his offense, and has become a changed person in that regard, and the evidence is there that he has, in fact, been changed, then such punishment serves no positive purpose. It does nothing for the offender, nothing for the victim(s), and nothing for society. All it does is satisfy the desire for vengeance, "The s.o.b. got what he deserved!" What such person should receive is restorative justice. He should be required to express regrets to his victim(s) and to provide what restitution he can to them.

An example of the above is the Karla Mae Tucker, "pick-axe murderer". She had killed a man and a woman with a pick-axe. Later in prison, she repented and was delivered through Christ, and began to praise and worship Him. A psychiatrist who afterward examined her, stated that she was psychologically incapable of killing again. Notwithstanding she was put to death by lethal injection since in Texas, those who have murdered must be put to death (retributive punishment).

A person who has committed crimes and who has never repented ought to receive corrective justice. If necessary, he should be incarcerated in order to prevent him from repeating his crimes, and should receive any type of treatment which will help to change him. He should also be required to do restorative work such as community work, and work which will provide some sort of restitution to his victim(s). However, even an unrepentant person should receive retributive punishment; no one should.

Within Christianity, the same two views of punishment persist: retributive punishment and reformative punishment. Some think that God will punish every wrongdoing of the past unless it is "covered by the substitutionary death of Christ". Others, such as George MacDonald, believe that God does not punish past sinful acts, but corrects present sinful nature. However, if the person repents and submits to Christ, and is delivered from his sin through Christ's death then, of course, there is no correction necessary.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

The most common form of "justice" in the world has always been retributive "justice" (which is not really justice at all, but vengeance).

But wasn't retributive justice a God given part of The Law of Moses, which was "holy, just, and good"?

Blessings, Homer

[Paidion]

Maybe you could assure us that it was indeed God's "law", and also explain in what ways it was "holy, just, and good."

[thrombomodulin]

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"?

[Paidion]

Thus, potential victims of future crimes are protected via the existence of a deterrent.

If deterrence were the sole justification for punishment, then it wouldn't really matter who was punished for a crime, as long as the populace thought the guilty person was punished. However, the value of punishment as a deterrent is questionable at best. Consider the following:

"Perhaps we can learn something from that most severe and controversial of penalties, capital punishment. ... In Canada, capital punishment has been prohibited since 1976. In contrast, many jurisdictions in the United States have brought back the death penalty since the 1970s, so that the number of executions increased almost a hundredfold since 1976. This difference in policy and practice gives us an excellent basis for comparison in terms of deterrent value. If punishment were indeed an effective deterrent, we would expect the homicide rate to have risen in Canada, while declining in the United States. But in fact the opposite has been the case. In Canada, rates of homicide, while never as high as in the United States, have declined steadily since 1976, from more than 3 per 100,000 that year to well under 2 per 100,000 by 1999. During the same period, U.S. homicide rates actually increased to more than 9 per 100,000. Other, more specific studies have found a singular lack of evidence to support the deterrence value of the death penalty." --- Changing Paradigms p. 38 by Paul Redekop (A Mennonite Christian) Copyright © 2008 by Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 15683.

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.

Wouldn't the fruits of repentance give evidence of it? John the Baptizer required his hearers to bear the fruits of repentance? Luke 3:8 The apostle Paul asked his hearers to "prove their repentance by their deeds." Acts 26:20 NIV. Just to give an example, suppose Joe Bloe robbed a bank, but was never caught. (Paul also wrote, "Let the thief steal no more, but rather let him labour so that he might have something to give to others). Suppose Joe Bloe had never stolen again during the next 30 years. Has he not demonstrated his repentance, that is, his turning away from theft? Has he not demonstrated a change in character, at least with regard to theft? If someone now reports him to the police and he is convicted, should he spend time in a federal penitentiary? Will it do him any good? Will it do the victimized bank any good? Will it do society any good? Should he not simply be required to return the amount he stole plus interest? (Perhaps he could also be required to pay an extra amount, but I imagine the interest after 30 years would be many times more than the original amount stolen, probably to the extent that he would have to make regular payments to the bank for the rest of his life.

Retributive justice, of course, is not limited to Moses - do you believe this also is not part of God's "law" (Quote from Gen 9:5)?

ABSOLUTELY! I fully believe that retributive justice is not only NOT God's law, but is completely contrary to His character.

If it were a part of God's law or practice, then His Beloved Son, who is Another exactly like His Father, would have told his disciples to do the same. Instead, He told them to do the exact opposite.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5:38-41 ESV

[thrombomodulin]

Paul Redekop has not provided a good argument. Over the period 1976 to 1999 there were about 20,000 murders per year in the united states, thus a total of ~480,000. Over this period, capital punishment was used 598 times. Supposing every case of capital punishment had been in response to murder, only 1 in 800 criminals received the penalty. A 1 in 800 chance of receiving the death penalty, is surely not among the foremost considerations of a criminal contemplating a crime, and hence it is no surprise to have the statistical difference between the US and Canada.

On the other hand, John R Lott's work more guns less crime, offers a statistically robust analysis of crime rates and gun laws on a county level. He has found that crime rates are reduced at a regular rate by the gun ownership. Further, consider the reason why pro-life demonstrations in front of abortion clinics (a crime by the state's laws) was stopped in the USA - this coincided exactly with the state pressing greater penalty's upon the protesters (i.e. the RICO laws). I think it only makes sense to believe that penalties (and rewards) affect the choices people make. Jesus himself appealed to men upon this basis - men will either perish, or will receive eternal life. God has made men rational beings which are able to, and do weigh out the costs of their decisions - namely, a criminal makes a decision about committing a crime because he expects and desires a certain outcome. The prospect of increased penalties will change the decisions made by some men about whether or not they choose to commit a crime.



Although both verses encourage repentance, neither of these verses suggest that a unrepentant person cannot deceive one attempting to judge whether the repentance is valid.

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.

The words of Genesis 9:5 are attributed to God himself. Since God spoke these things, how is it that such is not part of His law?

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.