Special Rights for the Amish?
Dean
Apparently, the state of Ohio is considering enacting a law to explicitely excusing the Amish from jury duty, since their religion forbids them from serving anyway and judges waste a lot of time excusing them.
At first I thought this was a fairly sensible idea. I'm a big believer in supporting religious freedoms, after all. However, I must admit that the Truth Laid Bear makes a compelling case against this proposal. I didn't think he could change my mind, but by the time I finished reading it, I discovered that he had managed to do just that.
I don't think it's right to deprive people of rights because they refuse to be jurors. A jury is the right of the defendant, not much of a national duty for the juror (most democracies don't have juries). If we let people avoid the draft (now THAT'S a national duty when it's needed) because of religious reasons, we should surely let them out of jury duty.
Wolfeyes's objection appears to be specious, however. To the extent anyone, including a nominally Amish person, seeks to "use the 'judge not' excuse" as a pretext to avoid jury duty for their own convenience, the exemption will not and should not apply. Only bona fide religious exemptions should count. When it doubt, offer community service option instead, preferably under conditions that the average person finds slightly less pleasant than jury duty.
Where the Amish-only rule becomes a real problem is if any other, non-Amish sects out there who also interpret "judge not" the way the Amish do, but who do not receive the same accomodation solely because their sects are not Amish. They have a very solid First Amendment objection to this law, as would any criminal defendant who can credibly argue that an Amish-free jury violates his right to a trial of a jury by his peers. Everyone else has a pretty crappy objection IMO, although that does not mean the courts won't entertain it. They seem the most willing to relax the standing doctrine when hearing establishment clause cases.
Actually, the other sects who interpreted said clause in a similar manner would just have to go through the non-expedited route of refusing to pass judgement. Juries, after all, cannot be forced to come to a verdict.
At some point we're going to have to throw people who won't conform to some broadly established religious principles (you can call them "first principles" if you please, by they'll be as much a matter of faith and treat people in just as non-materialistic a manner) — things like people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that we're all created equal, that we have responsibilities to our fellow creatures, etc.
He's fundamentally correct that philosophical tolerance must be narrow, or it's merely anarchy.
To carve out a special exemption for them opens a pandora's box to enshrine other common objections. When that happens jury duty will becme requests for only those that choose to participate.
Some of the reasoning in the comments were better than the article. "At the very least, you should have to go down to the courthouse and explain why you would make a crappy juror." And what if an Amish was on trial, that person would not be able to get a "trial by their peers."
And there is always going to be the exception, even among the Amish. There are many Amish in parts of Wisconsin, and there are a few that rebel at least in part with some of the traditional views, like for instance the 10% that do vote. Then would they be prevented from jury duty if they felt obligated in spite of their sect's views? Maybe not legally, but this sort of bad law would give either side the excuse to dismiss them out of hand.
It is unacceptable to have different laws for people of different faiths. This is one country, and if people are outside the application of the law, then it's breaking a tradition going all the way back to the Magna Carta.
I also find the argument "Judge not lest ye be judged" as their reason to be a bit hypocritical. With their strict tenets and propensity for shunning, there's a bit of judging going on, I'd say.
I suppose the biggest objection is that Sharia is biased against women, but again, from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) the women would have to agree to it before it would be allowed (and women do have certain advantages under Sharia by the way--not least of which is that if a man divorces her she gets 100% of his property).
In the final analysis, you're going to have three types of juries:
- 0% Amish, where Amish aren't even called.
- 0% Amish, but Amish stay on the rolls to be called every so often.
- 1+% Amish, where the Amish refusal to pass judgment means you might as well skip the trial, since a unanimous guilty verdict is impossible.
I think we can all agree that the last option is unacceptable. The practical difference between the two other options is measurable entirely as waste: wasted time, unnecessary fees, etc.
Amish people aren't going to serve on juries either way. Indeed, Amish could vote and still not serve on juries even before the law was passed. NZ Bear may not like it, but this is purely an exercise in greater government efficiency, and despite the beliefs of some, making government more efficient is neither illegal nor immoral.
Nor would I have a problem with such efficiency being applied to other groups that are commonly excused from jury duty, as long as the group is not barred from duty.
Finally, regarding assimilation: we are successful because we are flexible and accomodating, not because we march immigrants at bayonet-point into our culture. We cite the Paris slums as examples of the failure of multiculturalism, but forget the examples of Liberia or the former Soviet republics when considering whether forcible integration within a larger culture works. And of all the cultural distinctions we recognize, religion has the most force in our laws. Given a choice between the First Amendment and some unenumerated tradition of "jury duty", I'll take the former any time.
- 1+% Amish, where the Amish refusal to pass judgment means you might as well skip the trial, since a unanimous guilty verdict is impossible.
That arguement is seriously flawed. To begin with more than 1% of the Amish would probbly do jury duty. As I said in my previous comment about 10 percent of them go against their sect's views by voting.
If they are also willing to go against their sect by sitting on the jury, they would probably as well be willing to convict. In fact if not, and they surely would be asked ahead of time, they would not be there to begin with.
Though they are much stricter in the beliefs that they hold than other religious sects, they too have those that decent. But often not serious enough decent to be shunned or expelled.
I am not well versed in Amish belief, though.
At any rate, the point is not relevant. Heterodox Amish, it is assumed, may evade the classification and thus present themselves to be called, and this without too much trouble. (If not, then this is a serious objection to the Ohio law.)
I presume that orthodox Amish are the problem in this case, and I presume that efficiency concerns warrant not bothering to call orthodox Amish. Do you disagree? What, other than the waste of taxpayer resources, do we gain by calling people to jury duty that have no chance of actually ending up on a jury?
Even in civil matters, there is a huge body of law that has been developed over the last two hundred years. To think that it's ok to have Sharia govern civil matters is still unacceptable. Civil law still allows access to the courts and representation by a trained lawyer. Noncriminal cases can be financially and emotionally devastating. Plus, under mediation both sides have to agree to it and can opt out. You know, for me to rise to the defense of our civil justice "system" takes quite a bit of doing:-)
You say that a woman gets 100% of the man's assests under Sharia law if HE divorces HER. If she should possibly get up enough courage to file for divorce, what happens to her then? What are the available grounds for divorce, who gets the kids? Under Sharia, a father owns his daughters (and all her assets) until she is married, then guess who owns them? And if the husband is dead, her brothers own her. I read a story about a female physician whose brothers would not allow her to marry because they enjoyed the fruits of her labor rather much. So she had to run away to marry, and is actually afraid for her life.
Women have to agree to use Sharia? Good Lord, do you really think that these women would be allowed to disagree? That's like saying an abused women can just leave her husband. It ain't that easy.
Certainly our laws are based on "draconian" systems like the Torah, but we modernized, did we not? Has Sharia modernized? Not much. Get a load of this from a student organization at a University!! Well, at least there's no mention of stoning.
Aside from those issues, there is still the whole point of having a system of justice different from every other American. If we (and Canada) want to people to assimilate we can't allow these little enclaves to sit outside the law. I don't care so much about the Amish (who do allow their young adults to choose to stay or go), but I care a lot about Muslim-Americans. I would like for them to put a little more emphasis on the "American" part of that appellation. I would think the Canadians would want that, too.
But no special laws for anybody. We are not operating this country as a special preserve for exotic cultural species. While there is room here for anybody to live in peace and obscurity, which I gather is much of what the Amish want from the rest of us, there is no need to create special laws that would help lock up this particular segment of americana into a sort of open-air cage designed to help them preserve and maintain the anti-assimilationism that has been built into their sub-culture since it emerged in Germany some centuries ago.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I called my sister a few minutes ago on the phone, who lives near to an Amish society. It was from previous conversations with her that I drew my assumptions. She tells me she doesn't think they are actually forbidden to vote. But she did get the impression from some she knows enough to have talked to, that they do not wish to participate.
I did some google on it and sure enough, Bush was even courting their vote. Also a few google references seem to suggest that as pacifists, most Amish avoid political activity that they believe would link them even indirectly with government-sponsored violence.
Anyway, they have it right on that point. They are consistent. Voting, jury duty, military service, are all degrees of involvement in government-sponsored violence. Government, stripped down to its essence, is organized violence or threat of violence -- courts, police, prisons, armies, navies, nuclear bombs, all of it, the whole apparatus of government. That is what it is. As George Washington put it: "Government is not eloquence, it is not reason. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
G. K. Chesterton argued that women should not vote because they should not be executioners. I can see his point. If I, as an executioner, physically pull the switch on a convicted murderer condemned to death, that is an act of violence. If I, as a judge, sentence a convicted murderer to death, that is the same act at one remove. If I, as a juror, find a man guilty of murder, knowing that he will then be sentenced to death, that is the same act at two removes. If I, as a voter, vote for a law authorizing the death punishment for convicted murderers, that is the same act at three removes. If I, as a voter, vote for a representative on the grounds that or knowing that he will vote for a law authorizing the death punishment for convicted murderers, that is the same act at four removes.
Paying taxes to support this apparatus of death may also be considered an act of violence may also be construed the same way, but that is under duress, while all the other things are voluntary. Nobody is forced to vote, be a judge, or be an executioner, and there are a thousand ways to get excused from jury duty. You have to pass a lot of heavy-duty screening in order to get _on_ a jury, and people who are philosophically opposed to capital punishment are regularly excused from jury duty in murder trials.
I myself believe that government, societally-organized violence or threat of violence, warfare, executions, imprisonment, taxation, all of that, is necessary given all the violent tendencies inherent in human nature. I can have some respect for an honest pacifist or anarchist who refuses to participate in any of these things, even to the point of going to prison for his or her beliefs. But the law is the law and must be enforced even on those who disagree with it. I have no respect whatsoever for today's "peace" movement, which is merely appeasement and surrender to tyrants who daily inflict far greater and crueler violence upon their subjects than has ever been inflicted in our great country.
As for arguments that non-voters would not be tried by a jury of their peers: quite right. Even for non-voters, we uphold a higher standard than that.
Plus, the question arises, what is involved in determining whether someone is "active member of a recognized amish sect"?