[QUOTE=edwin333;42164]I don't think that my views are completely typical - but it may give you an idea of the types of problems. I do not accept the separation of the functions of judge and jury. I believe that I am responsible for the results of my actions. If I find someone guilty of a crime, I am responsible for the punishment that follows - even if it is someone else who dictates that punishment. It may be that I would find someone not guilty because I would not be willing to accept the punishment that would follow from finding someone guilty - even if I were absolutely sure they were guilty.

This is made more extreme because I do not support a justice system based on punishments.[/QUOTE]

Yes... if you're looking at, say, a drug case where the mandatory minimum will be draconian, what do you do?  Even if you're convinced the defendant is guilty, what will happen to them if they're convicted is way out of proportion to what they did (assuming it should even be punished at all--if there is to be any punishment for crimes, should that include nonviolent violations of drug laws?)  Or cases where the law itself is unjust or is being applied unjustly--like a young man who gets his girlfriend pregnant in a consensual act, takes full responsibility, and is then prosecuted for statutory rape or fornication (in the fornication case I remember hearing about, the young woman was prosecuted too).  If I were on a jury with that sort of case, I don't think I could ever vote to convict.  (Which would probably get me booted from jury selection early on!)

And, like at least one other poster here, I am not Quaker, but do find that many of my beliefs are close in nature.

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;27002]When a jury finds someone guilty, they are not passing judgment on the character or nature of the individual, they have simply determined the individual committed an act which is defined as illegal.  The role of a jury isn't to determine if someone is a good person or a bad person, it is to determine if a person did or did not do something.[/QUOTE]

I realize that I have stumbled into this thread two months too late.  But Ozymandias makes such a good point here that I wanted simply to echo it.

While Quakers believe that there is that-of-god in every person, including the most hardened criminal, this does not preclude them from weighing in honestly on the issue of one's responsibility for one's actions.

fox

Marcyy wrote:

Well, as a Quaker, I am glad I don't have to struggle with this question. With over 40 years of volunteer work in prisons, I would not be chosen to serve on jury duty.

Also, I have very definite ideas on the inequality of justice through the courts in this country. Too many inequities within our legal system , and I am certainly opposed to the death penalty.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and i can't think of anyone i  would rather have on a Jury than a Quaker-what exactly would disqualify you from serving on a misdemeanor trial such as the DWI i tried yesterday and today or the DWI i am trying on Monday?

Well, as a Quaker, I am glad I don't have to struggle with this question. With over 40 years of volunteer work in prisons, I would not be chosen to serve on jury duty.

Also, I have very definite ideas on the inequality of justice through the courts in this country. Too many inequities within our legal system , and I am certainly opposed to the death penalty.