Stabby-

Can a creationist be expected to grasp the nature of scientific evidence presented in court?

Stabby---------------

Corwin

Can most people?

4th Generation Atheist

The one time I did jury duty the woman next to me believed the Moon landing was a fake.

I don't think the courts usually look that hard. BTW, no one made a fuss about the God-oath, IIRC, but it was a few years ago. But discussion about that was what brought this oddball's views out.

Zimyatin

Well Atheist should be banned from jury duty. How can well allow someone to judge another if that someone is not guided by godly principles? How can we allow someone who rejects the obvious truth of god to serve so vitale a function of our christian republic?

And anyway, atheists should be banned so I can stop ignoring my jury notices.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Zimyatin ]</p>

CaptainDave

Stabby,

I don't know what your experience has been with creationists you have known personally, but I think you will learn not to underestimate them in general. Many of them are logical thinkers in every way EXCEPT when they have a vested emotional interest in an issue - such as whether humanity has a devine origin or evolved from lesser life forms.

It's not only religious people who fall prey to this. Albert Einstein's philisophical worldview led him to reject quantum mechanics and even to re-work his own theories. He later called it, "The biggest mistake of my life."

Forget banning creationists from jury duty.

Stabby-

Criminal Forensic medicine has made scientific methodology core to investigative truth. If a jury is the only source of fact, shouldn't they be selected by their scientific skills? Creationists reject science. Therefore, they should be disqualified. Just as any biased person is removed for jury duty, creationism is a clear bias against forensics.

Stabby------------

Splat

A scientific literacy test for jurors would be a great idea. Except for the problem of never being able to come up with a full jury.

The only time I was on jury duty, we had an absurd assault case that never should have made it to trial. There wasn't any physical evidence or witness testimony that a crime had even been committed, only the plaintiff's testimony. But when she got to the stand, she admitted that she had no idea what had happened, since she and her boyfriend were ragingly drunk at the time. They had played tug-of-war with a phone, and she had a bruise on her foot that might or might not have been there the day before (she couldn't remember). An over-zealous assistant DA had trumped this non-event up into six charges (including, for reasons I never understood, attempted sexual assault). It was just incredibly absurd.

When we finally got in the jury room, only two of us voted "not guilty." Every single one of the "guilty" voters said that they "just thought he was guilty." One lady said that she just thought that he looked guilty!

As it turned out, the two of us who voted not guilty were the only two in the room with science backgrounds. The other guy gave an eloquent explanation of the Enlightenment and the logic of science and the American justice system. The next vote was 11 not guilty to 1 guilty. After half an hour of arguing, the lone holdout gave up, we set the guy free, and went home.

I've always been really proud of that. But it's scarey to think that this guy could very easily have ended up in jail (at huge expense) because 12 of his "peers" couldn't think their way out of a matchbox.

gilly54

I recently came the closest to having to sit on a jury. Being a novice in court protocol, I was worrying about if they asked me to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, so help me God" while swearing on the Bible, I'd have to decline. Or is that just done in the movies for dramatic effect? I'm sure there must be some other phrase for us heathens. Getting out of jury duty couldn't be that easy.

jankin

The qualification for a jury is not intelligence, but whether or not they are the accused's "peers". Since many accused are theists, shouldn't they be tried by theists? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

The Lone Ranger

The last time I was called to jury duty, I made it all the way to the final selection process. The defense attourney asked me what I do for a living, and I told him that I was a college professor and biologist. He dismissed me immediately.

Sad to say, the ability to think is not what lawyers are looking for when they put together a jury.

Personally, I like a suggestion that Marilyn vos Savant once made: get rid of juries entirely. Instead, have cases decided by a panel made up of judges. Not only would they have a far better grasp of the law than the average citizen, but they'd be far less likely to be swayed by emotional arguments, and so more capable of reaching a fair verdict.

Cheers,

Michael