Jury Duty

Real Psycrow

I've been called up for jury duty. One of the penalties it mentions is a €500 fine for refusing to be sworn in if called for a jury. I'm assuming they cater for all beliefs and lack of, but does anyone know what the story is?

Draco

They do - there's an alternative oath you take if you don't want to swear on the bible.

Source: I did Jury Duty 2 years ago and asked not to swear on the Bible.

Real Psycrow

Great. Thanks Draco.

lazygal

You affirm rather than take a religious oath. It was made clear when I was on jury service in the criminal court a couple of years back what the options were.

Real Psycrow

thanks a lot

magicbastarder

Draco wrote: »

Source: I did Jury Duty 2 years ago and asked not to swear on the Bible.

Jury Duty 2: this time it's personal!

Michael Nugent

You have the option to make a secular affirmation rather than a religious oath.

When I was on jury duty some years ago, they didn't mention the options, and we were just asked by default to swear on the bible. I said that I wanted to make a secular affirmation instead, and I was allowed to do that. But I had to raise the issue myself.

They might be more explicit about the options now, based on what lazygal has said, or it might vary from court to court. But whatever the procedure they use, you do have that option.

It is different from the religious oaths for President, Judges and members of the Council of State because the wording of those oaths are written into the Constitution, and so cannot be changed without a referendum.

There are good arguments against having alternative oaths, instead of a single secular affirmation that everybody can take equally.

If you choose a secular affirmation as a defendant, you could bias religious jurors against you.

Also, there was a European Court case a few years ago in which some Greek citizens won a human rights claim that their right to freedom of conscience was infringed by being given the option between a religious and secular oath, because they were forced to publicly reveal information about their private personal beliefs when they chose between the options.

Another option would be to have no oath. Just have the Judge tell the jurors, defendants and witnesses that they are in Court and that they are legally obliged to tell the truth and that they are committing perjury if they fail to do so.

Michael Nugent

Here are details of that European Court case.

http://greece.greekreporter.com/2011/11/06/echr-finds-religious-oath-in-greek-courts-against-human-rights/

ECHR Finds Religious Oath in Greek Courts Against Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled against Greece for violating human rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion by requiring all court participants to take an Orthodox Christian oath on a Bible.

The ECHR tried the cases of applicants Panayotis Dimitras, Theodoros Alexandridis, Nafsika Papanikolatou and Andrea Gilbert. The last applicant is a United States national and the other three are Greek nationals, who appeared on various dates between February 2006 and December 2007, as witnesses, complainants or suspects in criminal proceedings in Greece.

In conformity with Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were asked to take the oath by placing their right hands on the Bible. Each time, they informed the authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and preferred to make a solemn declaration instead, which they were authorised to do.

The Court found that requiring the applicants to reveal their religious convictions in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration had interfered with their freedom of religion according to Article 9, and that the interference was neither justified nor proportionate to the aim pursued.

The ECHR called the Greek government to comply to its ruling and alter the current legislative framework, so that similar violations can be avoided in the future.

Cabaal

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you choose a secular affirmation as a defendant, you could bias religious jurors against you.

Could you imagine being in the bible belt in America and not swearing on the bible, jurors would be biased against you within milliseconds!

magicbastarder

the main issue there might be the defence or prosecution objecting to you purely on that basis - so (if that scenario is common), juries would be more religious than the demographics would imply.

Attabear

Cabaal wrote: »

Could you imagine being in the bible belt in America and not swearing on the bible, jurors would be biased against you within milliseconds!

"I'd prefer to make a secular affirmation your honour"

"BURN HIM!!!!"

"But he's a juror"

"BURN HIM!!!!"

Deadlie

In this court, we deal only with facts. Disregard hearsay, unsupported personal beliefs and gut feelings. Uncovering the truth is difficult, but it's also methodical.

Now, to make sure you understand all that, swear on this book that we're told is magical.

kylith

Cabaal wrote: »

Could you imagine being in the bible belt in America and not swearing on the bible, jurors would be biased against you within milliseconds!

A non religious friend of mine who once had to testify in court swore on the bible for fear that asking for the secular affirmation would bias the jury.

Of course the best option would be for everyone to take the same secular oath so that no-one's religious belief, or lack thereof, could influence juror opinion. But I'm sure that'd be called oppression or bigotry or something.

J C

kylith wrote: »

A non religious friend of mine who once had to testify in court swore on the bible for fear that asking for the secular affirmation would bias the jury.

Of course the best option would be for everyone to take the same secular oath so that no-one's religious belief, or lack thereof, could influence juror opinion. But I'm sure that'd be called oppression or bigotry or something.

Not in the least bigoted ... and an excellent idea.

You may be surprised, but Saved Christians don't swear on a Bible (a rather peculiar thing to do, when you think about it) ... we take an affirmation instead.
One thing we have in common, guys!!!:D

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

the main issue there might be the defence or prosecution objecting to you purely on that basis - so (if that scenario is common), juries would be more religious than the demographics would imply.

Obviously this varies from place to place, but:

1. In general, the prosecution is slow to object to jurors, unless it knows of a really material issue - e.g. the juror has a criminal record, the juror is personally known to the defendant. Most objections come from the defence side.

2. The defence side tends to prefer non-religious jurors - overly religious people are stereotyped as more likely to be judgmental.

Consequently, if objecting to jurors on the the basis of whether they swear or affirm is a factor (and, personally, I doubt that it is in many places) it's more likely to result in a disproportionately secular jury than a disproportionately religious jury.

Bonus hint: If you're trying to get out of jury duty and hope to be objected to, turn up wearing formal business clothes and carrying a copy of the Daily Telegraph or similar. Also, look grumpy.

Turtwig

Hah!

So bring a bible. Wear a visible religious medal. Reference God and Jesus as much as possible. Dress formally and have the daily telegraph in your hand. To get out of jury duty?

Peregrinus

Basically, try to look judgmental, so go for a judgmental religious stereotype look, not the bearded Jesus-freak look. Wear a dark suit (or the female equivalent). I'm not so sure about frequent references to Jesus - that can evoke the wrong religious stereotype. But you can pretty much open the throttle on words like "abomination", "unrighteous" and "judgment". if you can work the phrase "I blame the parents" into your conversation, so much the better.

In truth, though, you don't get to do too much talking. Any objections are going to be based on your name, your address and how you look, and you only have control over the last of these. In addition to the suit and the Telegraph, I suggest carrying an umbrella - not the folding kind. Polish your shoes.

If you're a balding man, try to form your hair into an obvious combover. If a lady, purse your lips a lot and carry a severe-looking handbag; try to channel Margaret Thatcher on a bad day.

kylith

You could pull a Liz Lemon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BsMSNfraQ

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

You could pull a Liz Lemon

Doesn't always work :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBuNvyo4j54

Doctor Strange

"I am racist against everyone."

How to get out of jury duty in 5 words.

Banbh

I understand that you must inform the judge that you would prefer to affirm rather than take an oath BEFORE the clerk has begun to swear you in.

In practice, when I was called, the Bible was handed from one juror to another and the clerk was fairly swift at getting through the swearing. So, I just didn't take the Bible from my neighbour. It was also necessary to give a reason to the judge as to why you don't want to swear. In my case the judge looked over his glasses (they all went to the same acting school) and asked my for my reason. I said 'because I'm an atheist' and he said 'a practising atheist?' Cue laughter. I said yes and the clerk went and found the affirming words.

Sierra 117

I was sworn into a jury yesterday. The case is about cannabis growing and when the jury was being selected, one lad told the judge that he needed to be excused because he smoked cannabis. And it worked!

irish_goat

Sierra 117 wrote: »

I was sworn into a jury yesterday. The case is about cannabis growing and when the jury was being selected, one lad told the judge that he needed to be excused because he smoked cannabis. And it worked!

"I need to be excused because I am also an axe murderer", might not though.

magicbastarder

Sierra 117 wrote: »

I was sworn into a jury yesterday. The case is about cannabis growing

you do know you're not allowed discuss the case outside the court?

Cabaal

magicbastarder wrote: »

you do know you're not allowed discuss the case outside the court?

He mentioned what the case is about, he hasn't discussed anything about it.

The newspapers can also say what the case is about,

magicbastarder

the newspapers aren't on the jury, though.
just found this about UK law:
"Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison."
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial

Sierra 117

magicbastarder wrote: »

you do know you're not allowed discuss the case outside the court?

Is mentioning what the case is about included in that? I thought discussing the internals of the case was what was prohibited.

nozzferrahhtoo

I think it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson who told a funny story about being called for Jury Duty. I will summarize and get it wrong, but the gist of it is correct.....

Wherever it was, you get called in a group and through a selection process the final jury is chosen from that group.

In one of the meetings for this Tyson pointed to something suggesting an accused was alleged to have been caught with "ONE THOUSAND MILLIGRAMS OF THE DRUG".

He stuck his hand up and pointed out "So that is 1 gram then?".

He was not asked back for the next round.

TwoShedsJackson

Banbh wrote: »

I said 'because I'm an atheist' and he said 'a practising atheist?' Cue laughter. I said yes and the clerk went and found the affirming words.

Great the way they can have an oul laugh at the atheist anyway. If you were a Catholic and were asked 'a practicing Catholic?' in a smarmy way by a judge you'd probably get into the papers.

magicbastarder

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Is mentioning what the case is about included in that? I thought discussing the internals of the case was what was prohibited.

I would assume that identifying yourself as a juror on a particular case is a no-no. being as specific as giving a date and the jist of the trial would make it fairly obvious which trial it was.

Sierra 117

Ah, you've got a point. I hadn't thought about it like that.

Sierra 117

Though, our identities aren't hidden or anything like that. Anyone could find out who is on a jury just by walking into the court room.

Evade

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson who told a funny story about being called for Jury Duty. I will summarize and get it wrong, but the gist of it is correct.....

I prefer the anecdote about the first time he was called, they don't want you if you can evaluate evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y-lqO1dnX4

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

the main issue there might be the defence or prosecution objecting to you purely on that basis - so (if that scenario is common), juries would be more religious than the demographics would imply.

IIRC they do the objections before this, so it's purely based upon appearance. Death metal t-shirts FTW.

Turtwig

ninja900 wrote: »

IIRC they do the objections before this, so it's purely based upon appearance. Death metal t-shirts FTW.

Don't forget the tattoo on your neck.

Sierra 117

ninja900 wrote: »

IIRC they do the objections before this, so it's purely based upon appearance. Death metal t-shirts FTW.

Yep. An objection against a juror must be made before the juror has begun swearing in.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

IIRC they do the objections before this, so it's purely based upon appearance. Death metal t-shirts FTW.

Jernal wrote: »

Don't forget the tattoo on your neck.

No, no. You want your appearance to alarm the defence, not the prosecution. The prosecution very rarely objects to jurors, no matter what they look like.

magicbastarder

i have heard that on sexual assault and rape cases, young women tend to be objected to by the defence, and old men by the prosecution. the latter because they supposedly are more likely to adopt the 'arrah, she was asking for it' notion.

Banbh

'arrah, she was asking for it'

They'd be old men from west Kerry or north Mayo, I suppose. Other old men might say 'roight, she wos owsking for it.' But mostly old men are as socially responsible as other sections of the population.

Penny Dreadful

Wrong forum

Hotblack Desiato

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Wrong forum

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68490605 :pac:

kiffer

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have heard that on sexual assault and rape cases, young women tend to be objected to by the defence, and old men by the prosecution. the latter because they supposedly are more likely to adopt the 'arrah, she was asking for it' notion.

Interesting... I would imagine that older men with daughters would follow the general pattern of men and find everyone guilty.
Certainly men on juries for violent crimes are more likely to convict. Oh so I am given to understand...
I obviously am basing this on hearsay and not on the murder trial for which I was on the jury...

Peregrinus

The thing is, typically both prosecution and defence know next to nothing about the jurors, so if they are going to object at all it has to be on the basis of gross generalisations and stereotypes to do with age, gender and appearance. Of course, generalisations and stereotypes do sometimes align with reality, but it's fairly hit-and-miss.

Real Psycrow

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, typically both prosecution and defence know next to nothing about the jurors, so if they are going to object at all it has to be on the basis of gross generalisations and stereotypes to do with age, gender and appearance. Of course, generalisations and stereotypes do sometimes align with reality, but it's fairly hit-and-miss.

Not necessarily so. For instance a friend of mine was called up for a case where a man was accused of raping a minor. He was the first juror called and was immediately excused. But rather than generalising, I reckon they saw "Man in mid 30s, wearing a wedding ring, likelyhood is he has his own kids so will be naturally swayed in a certain direction".

I'm not saying there isn't sterotyping involved, I just think its more likely to be guessing based on deductive work. There are plenty of things about our appearance that can give us away.

Peregrinus

Real Psycrow wrote: »

Not necessarily so. For instance a friend of mine was called up for a case where a man was accused of raping a minor. He was the first juror called and was immediately excused. But rather than generalising, I reckon they saw "Man in mid 30s, wearing a wedding ring, likelyhood is he has his own kids so will be naturally swayed in a certain direction".

I'm not saying there isn't sterotyping involved, I just think its more likely to be guessing based on deductive work. There are plenty of things about our appearance that can give us away.

No offence, but how is what you describe here any different from stereotyping? Certain attitudes and assumptions are inferred from evidence of age and marital status; that's a textbook example of stereotyping.

Real Psycrow

No offence taken.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that its not superficial stereotyping. Its more details than that. There can be good logic behind the assumptions they make based on how a person looks. Its not just if a person is old or young, black or white, but different things about their appearances can point to multiple possibilities.