Limited Jury Selection

I just wrote an article about the Boston Bombing case's exclusion of Roman Catholics as a result of a religious opposition to the death penalty.  In that article, I discussed why this does not apply to this specific case.  I wanted to add more, but it does not fit that article, so I am writing one especially for this subject.

Jury selection is a complicated process.  Among other things, it is necessary to avoid bias.  For example, it would be a failure of justice to select a suspect's brother for jury duty for his trial.  The Boston Bombing case involves an especially severe crime, for which a possible sentence is the death penalty.  The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is almost no justification for the death penalty.  The result is that Roman Catholics who follow this teaching are being excluded from jury duty on this case, because ability or willingness to impose the death penalty, if necessary, is part of the jury selection criteria.  Some Roman Catholics are crying foul, while others are saying that this is a wise decision.  I want to explain why this criteria is necessary.

In Massachusetts, the death penalty is clearly a valid penalty.   This indicates that the majority of people of Massachusetts approve of it.  In other words, this penalty exists as part of the democratic process.  Now, if there is a jury, and one person on that jury is ideologically opposed to ever imposing the death penalty, and if the case may justify it (according to the law and the majority), then that one person is violating the democratic process by placing a limit that is not approved by the majority on the maximum penalty.  In other words, allowing a Roman Catholic who is opposed to the death penalty on this jury would undermine the democratic process.


If this is hard to understand, consider the following scenarios.

There is a guy who committed murder.  The maximum legal penalty in his region is life in prison without chance of parole or any other early release.  There is a group in his religion that believes strongly in mercy and repentance, and they will refuse to impose any sentence that does not provide some chance of eventually getting out.

There is a guy who accidentally killed a guy while committing another crime.  The maximum penalty is life in prison (with chances of getting out early).  There is a group in the area that does not believe in sentences of longer than 20 years (that is long enough that the prisoner will not "be the same person").

There is a lady who shot a guy during an armed robbery.  Her maximum penalty is 20 years.  There is a group of people in the area that believe all prison sentences should be directly convertible to community service, and they will refuse to impose any sentence that does not offer this opportunity.

Last, there is a drug dealer that was recently caught.  The maximum sentence for the area is 20 years in prison.  There is one guy in the area that does not believe in any punishment besides fines.  He will refuse to impose any jail time or even parole or probation.

Now, in which of these scenarios is it reasonable to allow a person with religious or ideological sentencing limitations to be on the jury?  None!  In all of these cases, the law is determined and supported by the majority.  In all of these cases, those with beliefs that limit their maximum penalty will undermine the democratic process and interfere with the democratically chosen definition of justice if they are allowed on the juries.  Juries have selection criteria for a reason.  That reason is to enforce justice as well as possible within the definition of justice set by the democratic process.  To allow people on the jury that cannot fulfill that definition is to allow religion or ideological beliefs to trump the democratic process.

A juror that cannot or will not impose the maximum penalty if the crime is severe enough to meet the criteria for that penalty should never be allowed on the jury for that trial.  This is not a matter of discrimination.  This is a matter of rule of law and protecting the democratic process.  Without this, no government or justice system can maintain stability or consistency.