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

Shrap

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:

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

[...] the judge never mentioned any alternative to swearing on the bible [...]

It was mentioned as an alternative when I was on jury duty last year - and I've a vague memory that one or two people used it. I'd imagine there are rules about that, so perhaps it would be good to ask the clerk of the court or the judge why the option isn't apparently available.

If you're feeling brave

lazygal

I did it in the CCC a few years ago and it was definitely mentioned that there were options for those who couldn't or didn't want to swear on the bible.

TheChizler

I doubt it's too much of an interruption as it must happen all the time that a person practising a non-Christian religion is sworn in, and then they have to go find a different book! I was potentially going to be in a situation before where I was going to have to affirm and the solicitor just said to say that I'd like to affirm and they'd just change the words that you have to repeat. But yes it's annoying that it's the default.

In a way you could imply that the courts have more respect for us heathens; they trust us not to lie without threat of damnation, when the religious require that to not lie, apparently

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

If you're feeling brave

It would somewhat suit my purposes to "be brave". Am imagining neither prosecution or defense would want such a trouble-maker! (which is somewhat my point. People seemed to be getting turned down on a weirdly arbitrary basis.....although it could work against me too ).

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

I did it in the CCC a few years ago and it was definitely mentioned that there were options for those who couldn't or didn't want to swear on the bible.

I was listening out for my options. None were given and nobody sought an alternative (possibly as none were given. Was honestly cr*pping my self to be put in the position to have to ask!)

Gordon

Why you worried about it? You're helping them remember, they should provide for you appropriately.

Just mention it to that dude. And if the time comes that you have to mention it when eyes are on you, just pretend it's a restaurant and you didn't get what you ordered!

Shrap

TheChizler wrote: »

In a way you could imply that the courts have more respect for us heathens; they trust us not to lie without threat of damnation, when the religious require that to not lie, apparently

I see what you're saying, but I suppose in fairness it's set up as a profound (on something of the utmost importance to you, as "holy god" is meant to be for Christians) and solemn oath. What gets me more is that I wouldn't imagine that even half of those jurors today pay more than lip service to the Christian god. If that. But they all, sheep-like, accepted the bible into their hands. Which, if they weren't believers made a lie out of the oath.

To get 12 jurors who didn't know people or needed excusing, 22 people were picked overall. Only 5 of the rejects didn't get as far as the oath, so that's 17 people who were firm enough in their beliefs to swear on "Almighty God". Me hole. :rolleyes:

Shrap

Gordon wrote: »

Why you worried about it? You're helping them remember, they should provide for you appropriately.

Just mention it to that dude. And if the time comes that you have to mention it when eyes are on you, just pretend it's a restaurant and you didn't get what you ordered!

Yes, point taken! I'm less worried (now that I've remembered the word affirmation) and more a bit pissed at them not making it easy enough and catching people on the hop. I CANNOT see that 17 of those people would have sworn on the bible, given the choice.


Edit: But the eyes are all on you even as the tip-staff guy ushers you in. Every word is heard. It's a bit cr*ppy putting folks on the spot to know what to do like.

Shrap

Gordon wrote: »

just pretend it's a restaurant and you didn't get what you ordered!

Actually, that's very good advice, thanks. I'll say it to the guy in passing "don't hand me the bible" (as he hovers behind people to shove it in their hands as soon as the solemniser is ready) and I'll say to the solemniser "I'll take the affirmation please". Ok, cool. Ducks in a row now

An Claidheamh

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:

What a tough guy you are.

Calling out the "saps" on an internet forum instead of asking to be affirmed like a normal person.

How could you be nervous?

Stop acting like a wimp. You don't sound old enough to be on jury service.

Brave? FFS, loser more like.

robindch

^^^ User carded for incivility.

Shrap

"Other poor saps" meaning myself included (out of everyone called for jury duty) in the proper use of language. Thanks. I did not put down anyone's beliefs - you read it badly, that's all. G'luck now.

Oh, and I'm a 43 yr old mother of two teens, and everyone was nervous actually. We were all talking about how serious it was and how we were dreading getting the call. But carry on misinterpreting by all means........

lazybones32

If you do get called, you have a chance to excuse yourself from serving: was called in June and one man said he had poor hearing and another said he was starting a new job the following week. The Judge excused them from serving without any question or query.

If you don't want to swear on the Bible, ask the clerks in the morning when they roll-call you or practice saying it at home or with friends, so when the time (may) come, you'll stand tall and speak clearly.

Shrap

lazybones32 wrote: »

If you do get called, you have a chance to excuse yourself from serving: was called in June and one man said he had poor hearing and another said he was starting a new job the following week. The Judge excused them from serving without any question or query.

If you don't want to swear on the Bible, ask the clerks in the morning when they roll-call you or practice saying it at home or with friends, so when the time (may) come, you'll stand tall and speak clearly.

I've no excuse this time unfortunately (well, no more than anyone else who has to take work off anyway). Judge said that medical appointments, job interviews, illness, new jobs, weddings, funerals, holidays booked.....all fine. Everything else not an emergency, not fine at all.

I will ask on Thursday. I asked a Garda (as all the clerks were busy) but he didn't know any more than I did. Think I have a line on how to do it now though, but the thread was really about how I felt totally put on the spot as the alternative wasn't even mentioned as an option. Everything else was explained in detail! Hopefully I won't be called though.

lazybones32

That's why I said to practice saying "I'm not a Christian" or whatever, when asked to swear on the Bible. They won't force you to but the judge will probably have some other statement for persons of other faiths/none.

Peregrinus

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 . . .

I agree with you that everyone should be offered the option, every time.

But, as others have said, if the option isn’t offered and you find that asking for it makes an unholy show of yourself, you’re probably doing it wrong. When offered the bible you can just say “may I affirm?” and the judge will say “certainly!”, and off you go. No drama.

For what it’s worth, my impression is that nowadays jurors are usually told in advance that they can swear or affirm, but this isn’t always done (and obviously wasn’t done in this case). In the past, they were much less likely to be told in advance that they had any option; they were just handed a bible and had to ask if they preferred to affirm (or to swear a non-Christian oath). I can’t claim to have done a scientific study on this, but my impression would be that whether jurors are told about this in advance, or have to ask, doesn’t make a huge difference to the proportion who choose to affirm, which is small in either case. I suspect that swearing an oath is a bit like getting married or burying the dead; it’s one of those solemn moments in life where people tend to continue to observe religious practices after they have ceased to do so in other areas of life.

Peregrinus

lazybones32 wrote: »

That's why I said to practice saying "I'm not a Christian" or whatever, when asked to swear on the Bible. They won't force you to but the judge will probably have some other statement for persons of other faiths/none.

As an alternative to swearing on the Christian scriptures, there are non-Christian religious oaths, and there are affirmations.

People who take affirmations may be unbelievers, or they may be believers from traditions who don't swear oaths (like the Quakers). You can't assume that somebody who elects to affirm is an unbeliever.

Atlantic Dawn

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.

BoatMad

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.

ah, the anonymity of the Internet

Peregrinus

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.

All you'll be required to do is affirm instead of swearing. I'm afraid you're going to have to find some other barricade on which to die gloriously.

magicbastarder

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)

what sort of case was it?
i was on the panel for a rape and sexual assault case, and it was almost amusing how the defence would object to a younger woman and the prosecution would object to an older man.

i was panellist no. 19, and panellist no. 18 was picked as the twelfth juror.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

you find that asking for it makes an unholy show of yourself, you’re probably doing it wrong. When offered the bible you can just say “may I affirm?” and the judge will say “certainly!”, and off you go. No drama.

The reason for my nerves was precisely because it would have been an awkward refusal to hold the bible, such was the speed of it being put into people's hands with the command to "hold the bible in your right hand".

I can’t claim to have done a scientific study on this, but my impression would be that whether jurors are told about this in advance, or have to ask, doesn’t make a huge difference to the proportion who choose to affirm, which is small in either case.

Obviously, I haven't done a scientific study either but from what I saw yesterday, my impression is that being told about it in advance would have made a huge difference in terms of a) my nerves, and b) respect for those on the jury panel with other religions and none. Clearly, I can't say if any of the jurors who did take the oath would have otherwise affirmed if an affirmation was offered.

jimmii

I was in court last week and when I was called up to give evidence I was given the option but it was basically whispered to me so it may have been that it was being offered quietly and you couldn't tell.

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

what sort of case was it?
i was on the panel for a rape and sexual assault case, and it was almost amusing how the defence would object to a younger woman and the prosecution would object to an older man.

Neither the prosecution nor the defence know anything at all about any of the prospective jurors. All they have to go on are stereotypes based on superficial appearance.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i was panellist no. 19, and panellist no. 18 was picked as the twelfth juror.

You were lucky!

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

what sort of case was it?
i was on the panel for a rape and sexual assault case, and it was almost amusing how the defence would object to a younger woman and the prosecution would object to an older man.

i was panellist no. 19, and panellist no. 18 was picked as the twelfth juror.

It was an assault, but they seem to have called in enough jurors to cover a week of cases. As this is a rural city, half the jurors would know at least one of the people involved in the case, so I suppose they have to cover all eventualities. People were called at random. I was panellist no. 7 and wasn't called. Thursday, we're back in in case they need a jury as they don't know yet.

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

Obviously, I haven't done a scientific study either but from what I saw yesterday, my impression is that being told about it in advance would have made a huge difference in terms of a) my nerves, and b) respect for those on the jury panel with other religions and none.

Oh, I agree. Ideally the panel would be told in advance that everyone can choose to swear or affirm, and then each of them would be asked individually, when the time came, "would you like to swear or affirm?"

All I'm saying is that, if you're not offered the choice, but you ask for it anyway, it's no big deal. But I get that people might be nervous that it would be a big deal.

Shrap wrote: »

Clearly, I can't say if any of the jurors who did take the oath would have otherwise affirmed if an affirmation was offered.

My gut tells me that, once one person is seen to affirm, others coming after them in the queue are more likely to do the same. And if people are told at the outset that they can affirm, you'd expect that first person seeking to do that would come along sooner.

But my entirely unscientific observation is that this isn't as big factor a factor as my gut expects. And there are two possible explanations for this:

1. Even when they're told they can affirm, and/or when they have seen someone else affirm with no drama attached, a lot of people are still a bit afraid to ask to affirm.

Or . . .

2. Even though they don't go to church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/meeting-house that often, and don't think about religion that much, a lot of people are quite comfortable about swearing, and in fact prefer to swear, in much the same way that they might prefer to be married or buried in a religious service. They're not very religious, but they're sufficiently religious to have a preference for these particular forms of religious expression.

Jen44

Perhaps I am being really silly?? But I dont get what the issue is here? why are people saying they would be nervous or have to practice saying something?? Do you not just say sorry i dont believe in God when they come to you? I have never had to serve so maybe thats why im not getting it. Im a nurse so have always been excused but whilst i do believe in God I wouldnt see what the problem would be with saying I didnt if that was the case.

uck51js9zml2yt

Shrap wrote: »

I was listening out for my options. None were given and nobody sought an alternative (possibly as none were given. Was honestly cr*pping my self to be put in the position to have to ask!)

Your over sensitive.

I'm a Christian and was giving evidence a few years ago.
I won't swear on the bible and asked the clerk to affirm.
It wasn't an issue. Got read the script, affirmed my intentions and the guy got 4 years.

Shrap

Axton Enough Globe wrote: »

Your over sensitive.

Quite possibly, in terms of my nerves about potentially having to ask for something I couldn't remember the word for. However, not in the case of thinking it was obnoxious that the option wasn't mentioned.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither the prosecution nor the defence know anything at all about any of the prospective jurors. All they have to go on are stereotypes based on superficial appearance.

indeed; i had variously been told to either wear a really sharp suit, or a megadeth t-shirt and leather trousers if i wanted to be excused.

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.