"If you were summoned to court for jury service, how do you think the judge would react if you stated your refusal to listen to the prosecution's evidence - because someone outside had already assured you that the accused was innocent?"
A question to ask active JW's
by The Fall Guy 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tiki
Not sure where you're going with this, but thats one way to get kicked out of the jury pool....
-
The Fall Guy
It's one way to get committed! :)
-
Tobyjones262
To try to pierce the bubble of a JW is just wasting your time. It can not be burst from the outside. It has to be pierced from within. If the person in the bubble does not want to let in anything critical it can not get in. Does not matter how logical the argument.
-
Magnum
I think I see exactly where you're going with the OP. JWs in general won't listen to evidence against them because they've been told not to, are scared to, are scared of what their JW peers will think if they do, have been assured that they're right, etc.
If the JWs who were asked your question were honest, I think they'd say the judge would react negatively, perhaps even administering some kind of punishment. If the JWs were crafty, they would look ahead to see where the question was leading, and if they saw the intent of the question, they wouldn't answer it or would dodge it somehow.
My family members often look ahead to see where my questions are leading, and I tell them they're not being honest when they do that and that it shouldn't matter where the question is leading - that they should just answer it truthfully; truth is truth. I explained to them that it's like a mathematical proof; they should check each step and verify it. If it's right, then go to the next step, but if it's wrong, then stop at that point; no need to go on.
Back to your question. Some JWs might say that if the prosecutor's evidence came from an enemy of the defendant, then they would tell the judge they wouldn't listen to it because the enemy is not for truth; his goal is just to oppose the defendant. However, the judge should reply to that saying that the source of the evidence doesn't matter, that it should be verified on its own merits by the jury. So JWs shouldn't be allowed to use their argument against listening to evidence because it came from "apostates".
-
blondie
I remember an elder who either didn't keep on new light or thought his personal opinion overrode the WTS change, announced from the platform that no jw could serve on a jury not realizing the WTS updated it to a conscience matter. I saw 2 elders run up to him after the meeting, possibly to update him. During the announcements next week, the brother assigned took a moment and asked an elder to come up and he explained the WTS change without naming anyone.
-
days of future passed
Juries are given specific instructions about what they can or cannot use in the case. In the process of selecting a juror on a case I was conscripted for, a lady said to the Judge that she knew the defendant. She was called into chambers because the judge wanted to ascertain if she could be impartial. When they came out, the judge said she had found that the potential juror could be impartial. Of course that didn't mean a thing because the lawyer kicked her out of the case the next round.
So judge or lawyer would have kicked them out. Probably the judge, would have chastised them.