Last Tuesday I had to report for jury selection at the court
house in London, Ontario. I had received
a summons about six weeks earlier while we were at our cottage in P.E.I. The timing was fortunate because we had
planned to return to our home here in Parkhill on Thanksgiving weekend and the
summons was to appear on the Tuesday after the Thanksgiving Monday―perhaps
fate or the gods were at work in that.
This was my first experience being called for jury duty and
I had mixed feelings about it. I am very
aware that serving on a jury is very important in our civil system of justice. So, I did not resent being called. However,
it did cause some disruption because, as usual, I had scheduled a lot of
appointments for the first weeks back.
The information I received advised that I could be involved for two
weeks so I cancelled some things and rescheduled other. It was an inconvenience but not a serious
one. It was not as if I had to serve on
a jury and lose wages which some people could find to be a serious problem as it
seems more and more people live paycheque to paycheque these day. The compensation offered by the justice
system is limited and no compensation is offered for the first 10 days and then
a limited amount after that.
The process itself was quite interesting and
enlightening. When I arrived, and found
parking near the court house―which wasn’t compensated for―I
made my way to the designated court house.
I did receive mileage (kilometrage?) as I lived over 40 km away. I sat in the court house with all the other
prospective jurors and we had the opportunity to watch an informative video
about the jury system and the importance of serving on a jury as a civic
duty. It was all very positive―rather
too much so―with
(presumably) actors playing people who had served and found it was the most
significant experience in the lives. It
was also very informative about the process of jury selection. After that we were given a live edition of
how the system works by the court administrator followed by the judge who was
quite informal and who actually had a sense of humor which went against my
stereotype of judges.
We went through a very formal taking of attendance by juror
number, which was on the summons along with occupation―Anglican priest in my
case. We had to declare if we were
retired or not. I was somewhat undecided
as clergy don’t ever truly retire―but as I decided I was receiving a
pension from the Anglican Church I was officially retired. The jury pool had 160 people and about 140
were in attendance. As one other members
of the pool said sotto voce, I wonder what’s going to happen to the ones who
didn’t show. I imagine there would be
some follow up.
We were then advised that there was only one trial scheduled
that day―a
civil trial which only requires six jurors―so the odds of being selected
were quite small. There were two jurors
who were selected and were peremptorily dismissed without cause and one who
tried to beg off for a what seemed to be a somewhat flimsy excuse. The judge, to his credit, did not let him off
without some hard questioning and then not until after the selection process
was complete. I was not selected in the
lottery which used an actual bin with the juror numbers which was spun before
each ticket was drawn. I was not
selected and had clarified earlier that if we were not selected on that day I
did not have to return the next day. It
was unclear if I would be part of the pool for the two-week pteroid
indicated. However, that was not the
case, so I and the others were set free.
I was tempted to break out into, “free at last, free at last, thank God
I am free at last,” which, of course, would have been a drastic over
reaction. I felt somewhat ambivalent but,
on balance, relieved I did not have to serve on the jury of the trial which involved
the London Transit System being sued by an individual. We were not made aware of any of the other
details. We were told however, that we should declare if we knew personally any
of the individuals involved in the case including the witnesses.
The process raised for me the principle of what the duty of
a Christian is to the civil system. What
do we owe to Caesar and what to God? In
this case there was no conflict of course.
However, that issue has arisen many times in the past and will in the
future. Where are we called to not
render unto Caesar the duty of a citizen.
What is the role of the conscientious objector? What do we do when our duty to God conflicts
with our duty to the state? Jesus was
executed by the civil authorities who were administering Roman justice which
was brutal an yet was very advanced for its time. It was done with the cooperation of the
Jewish authorities. He submitted and did
not call upon the armies of angels to defeat those authorities―but that
is a whole other topic or many topics for another day.
It was an interesting experience which I am glad I had. I am not sure I would welcome a repeat with
open arms but I perhaps I shall see.
No comments:
Post a Comment