Jury duty today - all "Christian" and sworn in on the bible.

Shrap

Jen44 wrote: »

Perhaps I am being really silly?? But I dont get want the issue is here?

Admittedly, it certainly seems less of an issue for me than it was yesterday. Probably wasn't worth the thread, please forgive the drama. Carry on people, nothing to see here

Thread could die quite gracefully now and I'd be delighted.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

You were lucky!

a fair few people have said that to me, but in a way, i'd have liked to have done it. certainly would have been interesting (and many other things besides) and maybe i've enough of an ego on me to make me think i'd be a good juror.

uck51js9zml2yt

Shrap wrote: »

Thread could die quite gracefully now and I'd be delighted.

Not a hope...for a while anyway

There is nothing to remember. Its read out to you phrase by phrase which you repeat.

When I asked to affirm I was in the witness box with the (insert word) accused sitting opposite me.
I wasn't offered the choice with me he clerk getting his Bible out first. He just switched without any issue.

My evidence was equal to the guards in truth and he got to spend a few years in mountjoy.

Shrap

Axton Enough Globe wrote: »

Not a hope...for a while anyway

There is nothing to remember. Its read out to you phrase by phrase which you repeat.

Ha, ah well! Worth a shot

That's not what I meant though. I just couldn't remember the word "affirm" and was getting panicky about what way to ask for it. That's all. Seems silly now, admittedly.

oldrnwisr

Shrap wrote: »

So there was I with the 50 or so other poor saps waiting to see if our number came up and we'd be called to the jury box, either to be turned down (in a seemingly random fashion) or if we knew someone involved in the case or if we were good to serve.

Well I wasn't called up thankfully, but have to go back in on Thursday for another selection process. What got my goat (or rather, had me sitting there nervous as the defendant) was that the judge never mentioned any alternative to swearing on the bible. Each and every jury member was literally instructed to hold the bible and swear on it, with the tip-staff (??) shoving it in people's hands. Nobody refused it, nobody asked for an affirmation instead.

But seemingly, you have to ask for something that wasn't offered. In other words, make a (un)holy show of yourself by interrupting an otherwise very serious and solemn procedure. My heart was in my stomach thinking I'd have to maybe mention it to the tip-staff as I went in, or refuse to hold the bible, or say it to the solemniser and then I drew a complete blank on the word "affirmation" and couldn't think what I should say or when. Good I wasn't called up, but Thursday might be different.

So many complain about atheists seeming to feel the need to say they're atheist at every opportunity (and I don't), but here's a prime example of how you can't help looking like you're just being awkward and confrontational by refusing to swear on a bible. Ridiculous. Two people got called up who were no more Christian than I (we were chatting about priests before hand) and they meekly and sheep-like did as they were told, both swearing to "Almighty God".

Rant over, but will this carry-on ever change? :mad:

I got called for jury duty (in what I'm guessing is the same court you're in now) about 2 years ago. The tipstaff came around with the bible and everyone swore their oath. The judge (or anyone else) didn't offer an alternative before things started so I had to ask for a non-religious affirmation. To the credit of the county clerk, he didn't bat an eyelid and jumped straight into reading out the affirmation. It was all over and done with pretty quickly and easily. I wouldn't worry.

Shrap

Thanks! Despite appearances here to the contrary, I'm a big girl now Will just have to speak up. Mind you, I could be turned down before I have to.....

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I got called for jury duty (in what I'm guessing is the same court you're in now) about 2 years ago.

Think my venue is in the smaller city up the road to the North East of you! Same risks of knowing half the people in the courtroom though.

Bold Abdu

It's all very simple.

I did duty a couple of months ago. The Bible was put in front of me, I said no religion and I took the affirmation - more or less the same words with God removed. No hassle.

I'd say you've a higher chance of being "de-selected" by doing so.

oceanclub

Yeah, I remember doing jury duty and being surprised having to explicitly ask to affirm, not swear on the Bible. It was the late Paul Harney who I asked. His expression could best be described as "bulldog licking piss from nettles".

P.

silverharp

Bold Abdu wrote: »

It's all very simple.

I did duty a couple of months ago. The Bible was put in front of me, I said no religion and I took the affirmation - more or less the same words with God removed. No hassle.

I'd say you've a higher chance of being "de-selected" by doing so.

By which side?

Hotblack Desiato

Don't they have to object before you begin the oath/affirmation if they are going to object?

I was a juror earlier this year in the CCC, affirmation was not mentioned as an option, no problem once you ask but you do have to ask. "I wish to affirm" is all that's needed. To avoid reflexively grabbing the bible thrust at you, keep your hands behind your back

I was in the waiting room for a few days and got to see on the TV link quite a few juries sworn in, I'd say 10-15% affirmed in total but it was more like 25-30% if someone on the same panel had already affirmed before them :rolleyes:

The idea of swearing a religious oath to perform a function or office of state is ludicrous, affirmation should not just be a right, it should be mandatory.

feargale

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What the hell has the bible got to do with law and order, it's a bloody disgrace that in a civilised country (without withcraft) that we refer to such a book as a Christian or not. If I am ever called up for jury duty I will laugh at it and refer to no book or bullsheite and spend 100 years hard labour if required

Well, do as much of it as you can.

Peregrinus

oceanclub wrote: »

Yeah, I remember doing jury duty and being surprised having to explicitly ask to affirm, not swear on the Bible. It was the late Paul Harney who I asked. His expression could best be described as "bulldog licking piss from nettles".

You mean Paul Carney? That was his default expression on every occasion, poor man, except when he was in drink. You shouldn't take it as a reaction either to you or to your desire to affirm.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

By which side?

On average, the defence are more likely to object to jurors than the prosecution are.

It depends on who is prosecuting, but there is a view among some prosecutors that their duty is to put the prosecution case to an impartial jury, and not to try and game the system by trying to select a jury predisposed (or stereotypically assumed to be predisposed) to convict. Whereas the defence job is to get their client off.

So, if you're hoping to be objected to, try to present with stereotypes that the defence won't like. As Hotblack points out, they'll have to make their call before you get to swear/affirm, but try to look as if you're going to swear, not affirm, and furthermore as if you're going to angrily enquire if this is the correct bible that they are presenting to you. You want to exude a religious vibe - and I mean religious in a judgmental way, not religious in a beards-and-sandals way.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

On average, the defence are more likely to object to jurors than the prosecution are.

So, if you're hoping to be objected to, try to present with stereotypes that the defence won't like.

Sadly, I look exactly like I wouldn't convict anybody and I have no smart clothes, even if that countered the hair (which it wouldn't). Defence will love me I shall pin my hopes on the prosecution.

Peregrinus

Have you considered a hatchet face and a Margaret Thatcher-style handbag? And your clothes don't have to be smart. Dowdy is fine, so long as they are severe. Purse your lips a lot and try to look as though your main worry is that somebody, somewhere is having fun and you have failed to stop it. In conversation, you can pretty much open the throttle on words like "abomination", "unrighteous" and "judgment". If you can work the phrase "I blame the parents" in, so much the better.

(Not that Counsel are likely to overhear much of your conversation. But if your voice is loud enough, who knows? Word may get back to them.)

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Have you considered a hatchet face and a Margaret Thatcher-style handbag? And your clothes don't have to be smart. Dowdy is fine, so long as they are severe. Purse your lips a lot and try to look as though your main worry is that somebody, somewhere is having fun and you have failed to stop it. In conversation, you can pretty much open the throttle on words like "abomination", "unrighteous" and "judgment". If you can work the phrase "I blame the parents" in, so much the better.

(Not that Counsel are likely to overhear much of your conversation. But if your voice is loud enough, who knows? Word may get back to them.)

Brilliant. I do possess a glare Medusa would be proud of but my handbags are all either furry or blinged. I'll go with the fur. I'd try remembering to use those words you suggest but I'd be afraid of once again forgetting the word affirm and asking for an abomination. Will see what happens

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

On average, the defence are more likely to object to jurors than the prosecution are.

It depends on who is prosecuting, but there is a view among some prosecutors that their duty is to put the prosecution case to an impartial jury, and not to try and game the system by trying to select a jury predisposed (or stereotypically assumed to be predisposed) to convict. Whereas the defence job is to get their client off.

So, if you're hoping to be objected to, try to present with stereotypes that the defence won't like. As Hotblack points out, they'll have to make their call before you get to swear/affirm, but try to look as if you're going to swear, not affirm, and furthermore as if you're going to angrily enquire if this is the correct bible that they are presenting to you. You want to exude a religious vibe - and I mean religious in a judgmental way, not religious in a beards-and-sandals way.

I had heard wearing a sharp suit was supposed to help get deselected but didnt work for me. My thought was that asking to affirm might give off the air of being a D4 uber liberal its not their fault kind of vibe so that it would be the prosecution that might see you as biased against the prosecution case.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I had heard wearing a sharp suit was supposed to help get deselected but didnt work for me.

You should wear a conservative suit, not the latest style. Also, if balding, try to style your hair into a combover even if that is not your usual preference.

But, tbh, these deselection techniques have limited effect. The parties only has a limited number of challenges they can make to a juror without showing cause, and very little information on which to decide to exercise them. Even if you look conservative and judgmental, someone else may look more conservative and judgmental.

silverharp wrote: »

My thought was that asking to affirm might give off the air of being a D4 uber liberal its not their fault kind of vibe so that it would be the prosecution that might see you as biased against the prosecution case.

By the time you get to the swear-or-affirm moment, the opportunity to challenge you as a juror has passed, so it's not data that they can take into account in their decision about whether to challenge you.

Plus, a lot of prosecutors tend not to make challenges to jurors, unless there are fairly striking reasons to do so. Neither strategy is terribly effective, but trying to act in a way that will get the defence to challenge you is usually more effective (or, at least, less ineffective) than trying to act in a way that will get the prosecution to challenge you.

All of which means that, if your swear-or-affirm choice was something they would know about before a challenge, and if your overriding objective is to be challenged, you should swear. But first you should scrutinise the court-supplied Bible with an air of suspicion, and then object that it's some heretical version and not God's Holy Writ As Personally Dictated To King James.

realdanbreen

Shrap wrote: »

So there was I with the 50 or so other poor saps waiting to see if our number came up and we'd be called to the jury box, either to be turned down (in a seemingly random fashion) or if we knew someone involved in the case or if we were good to serve.

Well I wasn't called up thankfully, but have to go back in on Thursday for another selection process. What got my goat (or rather, had me sitting there nervous as the defendant) was that the judge never mentioned any alternative to swearing on the bible. Each and every jury member was literally instructed to hold the bible and swear on it, with the tip-staff (??) shoving it in people's hands. Nobody refused it, nobody asked for an affirmation instead.

But seemingly, you have to ask for something that wasn't offered. In other words, make a (un)holy show of yourself by interrupting an otherwise very serious and solemn procedure. My heart was in my stomach thinking I'd have to maybe mention it to the tip-staff as I went in, or refuse to hold the bible, or say it to the solemniser and then I drew a complete blank on the word "affirmation" and couldn't think what I should say or when. Good I wasn't called up, but Thursday might be different.

So many complain about atheists seeming to feel the need to say they're atheist at every opportunity (and I don't), but here's a prime example of how you can't help looking like you're just being awkward and confrontational by refusing to swear on a bible. Ridiculous. Two people got called up who were no more Christian than I (we were chatting about priests before hand) and they meekly and sheep-like did as they were told, both swearing to "Almighty God".

Rant over, but will this carry-on ever change? :mad:

Here's an idea that's so crazy it just might work.
Say NO, I won't swear on the bible!
All they require is an affirmation. Did you not think of asking about that beforehand?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of which means that, if your swear-or-affirm choice was something they would know about before a challenge, and if your overriding objective is to be challenged, you should swear. But first you should scrutinise the court-supplied Bible with an air of suspicion, and then object that it's some heretical version and not God's Holy Writ As Personally Dictated To King James.

I'll try practice a Belfast accent with a paisley whistle for good measure. That will make me come across more judgy than the judge.
I'll try have my pastafarian minister position in place as its one of the questions on the form.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I'll try have my pastafarian minister position in place as its one of the questions on the form.

I think if you write "pastafarian" carelessly so that it just might be read as "Presbyterian", that might help.

You wouldn't by any chance be a Free Pastafarian, would you? No reason, just asking.

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

I'll go with the fur.

I'd suggest wearing a Pastafarian hat, then scream persecution when your honor demands you take it off.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I'd suggest wearing a Pastafarian hat, then scream persecution when your honor demands you take it off.

Shrap is a laydee. She generally wouldn't be asked to take her hat off.

On the other hand, if her hat is a colander, I'd say she has an excellent chance of being excused jury duty, and probably less than a 50% chance of being had up for contempt of court.

So, how about it, Shrap? Do you feel lucky today?

sangsung

What's the problem with this? It's just ceremonial. I don't care if I had to swear on a banana. It's all the same.

What would you like to swear on? The constitution?

TheChizler

sangsung wrote: »

What's the problem with this? It's just ceremonial.

A ceremonial lie in a courtroom?

Shrap

realdanbreen wrote: »

Did you not think of asking about that beforehand?

No, I assumed they'd give the options. This being a secular country where not everyone is Christian, like. Did you not read this thread?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Shrap is a laydee. She generally wouldn't be asked to take her hat off.

Except I did, before they asked. Even my hat is scruffy

So, how about it, Shrap? Do you feel lucky today?

I wasn't feeling lucky, but I am now! RELEASED from duty, yay!! After having us hang around till 2:30, they told us the case was settled. Yippeeee!

sangsung wrote: »

What would you like to swear on? The constitution?

Something meaningful to me, obviously.

sangsung

TheChizler wrote: »

A ceremonial lie in a courtroom?

What do you mean a lie?

If they had a Christopher Hitchens book, would it magically make you tell the truth?

realdanbreen

Shrap wrote: »

Something meaningful to me, obviously.

How about swearing an oath on the 'my ancestor was a chimpanzee' book?
Problem solved!

sangsung

Shrap wrote: »

Something meaningful to me, obviously.

So if you were on trial in court, and telling a lie guaranteed that you walked free, but telling the truth meant that you were given a life sentence, you would tell the truth if your favourite book was put on front of you? (whatever your favourite meaningful book is. What is it by the way?)

FishOnABike

If a person swears an oath to an entity they don't believe on a book of myths and allegorical stories is the oath valid?