The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Should we only have Atheists Judges and for Jury duty

Should we only have Atheists Judges and for Jury duty

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Another case of confusing Law with Justice, two apparently different things in many cases.

How would a jury be made up and how would it be selected?
How would this be a "jury of peers" if the defendant was a proclaimed athiest and the jurors were not?

If religion was the dominating force in this case, I suppose that the woman would have been burned as a witch.
Posted by rache, Monday, 14 January 2008 8:08:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PALEIF,

On the information supplied, it appears justice has been denied. If the magistrate, who would have had all the information to allow for a decision, has erred, then the church in question, or indeed the parent of the child or a legal representative on her/his/their behalf must approach the Police Commissioner to lodge an appeal. This seems necessary, not only for the sake of justice for the child and the goat but to make sure the woman who committed the crime has access to treatment. She has displayed behaviour well beyond what could be classed as ‘normal’ in Australian society.

The wider implications of having only Atheists as Judge and jury, is somewhat involved. The law is set up in such a way that if any of us offend against the public-interest, then judgement is by our peers pooled from the public. The controlling factor, which attempts to eliminate the prejudices existing in the community, is the Judge or magistrate, who instructs the jury about personal bias affecting decisions the jury makes. Unfortunately, sometimes, the partiality of the Judge or magistrate can interfere with the proceedings. An appeal may then be necessary.

Religious predisposition is not the only bias that exists. Atheists have them as well. However, I will say, even though Atheism is not an automatic inoculation against idiocy, it is better, in the broader consensus sense, than any other way. Better is not good enough though and the jury or magistrate may be in the idiocy-bracket of Atheism.

It just has to be accepted, that humans are fallible critters. What it all boils down to is that reason, rationality and compassion must be the guide in all decision making. Populist public-values can interfere with justice. To use the example of the Aztecs, as I often do; the tradition of sacrificing humans was only acceptable and quite legal to them -it is not to us. And I would hastily add, if they possessed the same information as do we, then their humans sacrificing days would cease.

Therefore, the answer to the proposition is a definitive no.

Davi
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Monday, 14 January 2008 8:24:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual, I'm largely in agreement with wiz.

While making atheism a prerequisite for jury duty would undoubtedly raise the collective intelligence of juries, this would not only be unworkable but would also discriminate against a significant proportion of the communities they are supposed to represent.

Not that juries aren't stacked anyway. On the occasions when I've been called up, I have invariably been disqualified by counsel, apparently on no more basis than the fact that I was employed as an academic at the time.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 14 January 2008 8:31:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The atheist judges have already decided it is okay to murder unborn children in the name of science or women's rights. God help us if they continue to have their way! There will not be many kids left in the public school system if they continue follow the dogmas of secular humanism also.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 January 2008 10:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't comprehend how this woman got off scott free. Was a jury involved? I don't agree that only atheists should be on a jury.
That would be biased. The same as selecting only religious people would be biased. Potential jurors are chosen from voting registers or other local government lists. Certain people are exempt or disqualified. These include people over a specified age, convicted criminals, those employed in the administration of justice and some professional people in the public service.

I like the fact that jurors are chosen at random for each trial. But I also like the fact that the defending lawyers may challenge a certain number of jurors before they are sworn in. I think that seeing as all jurors may be questioned to see if they are biased or prejudiced - the system is quite a fair one.

I don't understand what went wrong in this case. It sounds that a miscarriage of justice has definitely taken place and some one should appeal the verdict.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 14 January 2008 11:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't appear to be true that there cannot be an appeal because the matter was heard in a magistrate's court.

See the cases that this search produces

http://tinyurl.com/yojxj4

However, for an appeal to succeed, the sentence has to be "manifestly inadequate", which is quite a difficult test to meet.

Another difficulty would now arise, in that the appeal would be out of time. The court would have to give leave to allow the appeal to go ahead, and there would have to be special circumstances explaining the lateness of the appeal. Merely saying "we didn't realise we could" wouldn't cut it.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Monday, 14 January 2008 12:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy