MennoNet.com

Neto wrote:

Neto wrote:I was under the impression that if you are not registered to vote, you will never be called for jury duty.

Apparently I was wrong about this.

laws change, too.
i would have never thought former felons would be allowed to vote, but, that is no longer the case; possibly it varies by state.

I was summoned for jury duty once. A huge number of us were called into the court room and asked general yes/no questions by the lawyers.

One of them was something like, "Do you have an ethical limitation in sitting in judgment of another?"

I stood up for that question (saying yes), and the one lawyer asked me to justify myself but the judge told him, "You cannot demand justification from him. Please sit down."

I was not selected for the jury. It was a day off work. Got to read a book all day.

temporal1 wrote:laws change, too.
i would have never thought former felons would be allowed to vote, but, that is no longer the case; possibly it varies by state.

Yeah, telling former governors they can't vote doesn't go over too well.

ohio jones wrote:

temporal1 wrote:laws change, too.
i would have never thought former felons would be allowed to vote, but, that is no longer the case; possibly it varies by state.

Yeah, telling former governors they can't vote doesn't go over too well.

o.boy. that hits an (illinois) nerve.

Once Again wrote:I wasn't so much asking if jury duty was wrong as asking what reaction I can expect if I refuse to serve on a jury if I'm summoned, particularly as a person who does not attend a conservative Anabaptist church.

I doubt if they would ask you about what church you attend. It's about your personal beliefs.

I have a document with dozens of letters that cons. Anabaptists have used in different states to request exemption when called upon.

If you PM me with your e-address I'll send you the document.

In our county it used to be that when one of our Mennonite people received a jury summons they could reply with a letter stating that they could not conscientiously serve on a jury due to their religious beliefs, and that they were part of a church that taught this position. A letter from one of the ministers at church confirming this, and/or a copy of a statement of the church's position regarding jury duty might be enclosed. Often an excuse was allowed by mail, relieving the individual having to show up at all.
This has changed somewhat over the last few years, possibly due to a new judge being in charge of the jury summons process. Sometimes a written request works, but often the prospective juror is required to actually go to the courthouse and enter the jury pool. Similar to HippieMenno's experience, the jurors will be asked questions to ensure they can perform their duty. When a person objects on religious grounds, the judge may ask him/her to explain his/her position. This questioning by the judge can be somewhat intimidating for some people, as the intent can be to determine how deeply held that conviction actually is. Sometimes after the first person is questioned the judge will ask the balance of the jury pool how many others there are who hold this belief (it's not at all uncommon to have multiple Mennonites or Amish in any given jury pool), and the others may be let off with little or no questioning. They all may be required to remain at the courthouse until the end of the day and sometimes have to return the following day(s) until juries have been seated for all the cases on the docket.
Overall, our county still goes pretty easy on the Plain People regarding jury duty. Some in surrounding counties seem to face more aggressive questioning and be more likely to be detained as a part of the prospective jury pool longer. In some counties I think this is due to a general unfamiliarity with the Plain People's position regarding jury duty, but in one county in particular I have to wonder if it might not be because of the high number of Plain People asking to be excused - the court wants to make sure they are not just trying to avoid the inconvenience of serving, so what better way than to make sure it is just as inconvenient to not serve as it is it serve.
I've found that when a person is employed in a position where his absence would be an inconvenience to his employer, our county courts will grant a hardship exemption fairly easily. The prospective juror has to get a statement from his employer stating why the employee's absence would create a hardship (foreman of a crew, only secretary, etc.) and asking for the employee to be excused, and the court will often grant the request.

Josh wrote: If I sat on a civil jury, I would exhort the plaintiff they have been forgiven much - now forgive the person who's wrong you.

It's highly doubtful whether I'll ever be asked to serve as a juror in a criminal case. Especially if it involves violent crime. And if I was it's almost certain I would be excused. If not, I would certainly be asked to be relieved.

But I do not understand your reluctance to allow the law to take its course. Do you have kids? Let's assume for the minute you do, or can imagine yourself having a child. When they misbehave what would you do? When they broke known household rules, what would you do? No consequences for actions at all? Seems unusual and unbiblical to me.

And if someone rapes and kills your neighbours wife, you would just try your best to persuade the court to let him go and would have no reservations about him moving in next to your daughter? Because that's a different subject than forgiveness. A person can be forgiven and still held accountable for their actions. At least I hope so. And that is where the judicial system comes in. It may well be that "the plaintiff" in a case may be the state (or in my situation, the Crown) and they have the God-given mandate to punish evildoers. Are you going to try relieve them of the very purpose to which God ordained them?

For me, the reasons to not serve on a jury aren't really primarily related to "not judging" another person. The primary reason in my understanding is that serving on the jury is taking a place as a part of the earthy kingdom.

Bunny trail alert.
[An aside regarding the Two Kingdom belief that was mentioned In the Fads thread: I have always been uncomfortable with that terminology, because it sounds too much like what I grew up with: "God & Country" - the idea that there are two kingdoms, and we are members of both. It is for me a very clear either-or decision. Some people close to me think that I am too "cut & dried", but that's how I understand the Scripture, and I don't know anything else.)]

So I'm not saying that a person should not be judged & punished for their crimes.