oriecat

I had jury duty for the first time ever yesterday. I am still in court for the trial. Anyway... yesterday first thing we were given a handbook that went over all kinds of questions about the whole process n stuff. So I came across this one:

Question: Are grand jurors given a different oath?

Answer: Yes. Grand jurors have the responsibility to determine whether a person should be charged with a crime. Grand jurors are given a separate oath that "as grand jurors for the County of ______, do solemnly swear that you will diligently inquire into, and true presentment or indictment make of, all crimes against this state committed or triable within this county that shall come to your knowledge; that you will keep secret the proceedings before you, the counsel of the state, your own counsel and that of your fellows; that you will indict no person through envy, hatred or malice nor leave any person not indicted through fear, favor, affection or hope of reward; but that you will indict upon the evidence before you according to the truth and the laws of this state, so help you God."

Emphasis mine. Then next question:

Question: Must a person "swear" to the oath if he or she cannot because of religious convictions or personal reasons?

Answer: No. If a person is unwilling to "swear" to an oath he or she will be allowed instead to "affirm". When a person affirms he or she promises "under the pains and penalties of perjury" to carry out the functions undertaken as a juror.

So that really ticked me off. Why not just remove the stupid religious reference and just have everyone affirm so there's no two ways about it. How can I fight and get this changed? Can I? Should I? I need a battle plan...

Buffman

How can I fight and get this changed? Can I? Should I? I need a battle plan...

Since you are authorized to "Affirm" rather than "Swear," I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than merely getting the "swearing" removed from a document with which you are not personally involved at the moment. Some folks need the threat of supernatural retribution in order to act with integrity and responsibility. Be thankful that you don't; and that you are able to see and understand the difference.

Having served on several juries, believe me, when you elect to "affirm" rather than "swear" in an open central Florida courtroom, you become the instant object of considerable attention and under breath mutterings...but it seems that defense attorneys love you...especially if they have a capital case to defend. You immediately label yourself as an independent thinker. I rather relish the title.

oriecat

Thanks for your thoughts, Buffman. I was just doing a little research. I found the statute that contains the oaths. (Oregon Revised Statutes 132.060) Then I found the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Constitution which says in Article I "Section 7. Manner of administering oath or affirmation. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation shall be such as may be most consistent with, and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered.–" So I guess it would involve getting the Constitution changed anyway. Probably a lot more difficult than changing the law statute. Oh well. I'll keep looking for other battles...

Splat

Oriecat, don't give up so easily. It's at least worth a call or email to the state ACLU office. They'll be able to tell you whether it's constitutional or not.

Splat

abe smith

EH! Send money to and JOIN the ACLU! Do your fellowhumankind a service, so! YEAH!

ohwilleke

FWIW, I was just an attorney in a jury trial in Denver last week. The judge did not include the "so help me God" phrase in either the oath/affirmation administered to the jury or to the witnesses. He said, "Do you swear or affirm . . . "

Buffman

Splat & oriecat:

This URL seems like a good starting place:

<a href="http://members.aol.com/TestOath/issues.htm" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/TestOath/issues.htm</a>

These URLs may provide insightful views:

<a href="http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/TestOath/21atheists.htm</a>

<a href="http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.ptm.org/uni/QandA/0037/oath.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ptm.org/uni/QandA/0037/oath.htm</a>

Buffman

Obviously I intentionally presented the strongest arguments I could quickly find of the anti-Church-State proponents in my post above. I believe that we are better prepared supporters of C-S separation if we have a clearer picture of how we got here from there. For anyone that is truly interested in arming themselves with the most accurate historical information I have found on the Web concerning Church-State (Religion-Government) separation, I continue to recommend:

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html</a>

Bible Humper

Do you think it would be a good idea to remove "so help you God" from the oath?

What if an Xian juror discovered that the defendant was one of the "true Christians"?

How about cases where secular and scriptural law clash? (hate crimes against pagans)

Since they generally believe their religious doctrines far overshadow anything earthly, it makes sense to appeal to those doctrines to coax them to simply judge the case on it's legal merits(ideally). The only way they will make an effort to do that, is if they're worried that Sky-Santa is going to plop a lump of coal in their stocking for not doing so, IMO.

Toto

If they think their religion trumps the civil laws, how is "so help me God" going to fix that? The people who can't put their faith aside and follow secular laws need to be excused from the jury pool and sent home.