Now, the question is this: if you were accused in court of doing some nefarious deed, would you want to see me on the jury bench?
Well, that is not quite the question. The question is really whether or not you think that clergy should have an automatic right to be exempt from jury service if they wish it. Currently the law in Scotland is that clergy can be called for jury service but they have the right (as do a small number of people in other roles) to opt out if they choose.
The thing is, the Scottish “government” is currently carrying out a consultation exercise asking precisely this question. The consultation ends on 11 December and I was surprised to hear about it yesterday. It is the kind of thing that I think the General Synod Office might have alerted clergy to.
It is actually quite a tricky question. Undoubtedly, one wants juries to be representative of the general population. The rational behind the exemption clauses is twofold. Firstly people are automatically exempt from jury service if they have certain roles within the criminal justice system. Secondly, some people can opt out because they have roles in society that are deemed to be such that it serves the public good more to have them at work than sitting in court on a jury.
Clergy are complicated. (I know, I know). They can be involved in all kinds of ways both officially and unofficially in the justice system. Some people would think their job very necessary and others in society think them to be parasites.
Would it be acceptable to you to find that a particular priest was unable to take a funeral because they were on jury service?
Most people would accept that clergy need time away on holiday. (Though this is sometimes resented deeply too). It is also pretty hard for a lot of clergy to find cover at the moment too.
I think I am in favour of keeping the current system but I find it a harder judgement than when I first started to think about it.
The questions that the consultation raise are very interesting though and something that all kinds of people connected with the church might think about responding to.
I note in passing that Fr Dougal does not seem to be chosing to opt out this week. He might have a thing or two to say about this topic, though not of course about his actual experience.
I also note that the other roles which have the opt out include: members of the armed forces, MPs, MSPs, doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists and vets.
The consultation document is here. The relevent section is here.
What do you think? As the court hears what you are accused of and you raise your eyes nervously towards the jury, do you want to see me, in a clerical collar perhaps, sitting there?
However there are a lot of key workers so should there be an automatic opt-out for all of them (New York State had so many automatic opt-outs that it was difficult to find jurors)? Hardship opt-out on a case by case basis might be best (some people might be able to serve on a short trial but not a long one). Are Scottish juries sequestered or would a cleric on a jury still be able to do Sunday services and weekend funerals/weddings?
I’m entertained that Erp seems to think that funerals (or indeed Sunday services) are events that clergy could just turn up to and take.
Perhaps my original question should have been, would you be happy for a relative’s funeral to be taken at a weekend with very limited contact with the person conducting the service because the clergy person had been on jury service.
Scottish juries do sometimes get sent to a hotel, but I don’t think this is terribly common.
I don’t think you can just turn up for a funeral (though I have heard of horror stories about ministers who didn’t know the name or praised a deceased atheist as godfearing) and I certainly wouldn’t recommend trying to do a full time job and jury duty. However I believe some clergy (not all) have a bit more leeway working outside of standard working (and jury) hours for stuff that must be done by that particular cleric in person and not by a substitute. In contrast let us say to a construction worker who has to work set hours which usually coincide with jury hours. I suspect family might be willing for a weekend funeral and evening meetings if it means they could get their favorite priest just as they might be willing to wait a day or two if he was in hospital for surgery or on vacation. Of course I could be wrong.
Now whether I would want a cleric on the jury is another matter. Are you the sinners in the hands of an angry God type or somewhat more irenic (I believe you are the latter)? Am I the victim or the person in the dock?
Also how exactly does the law define ‘clergy’? Does it include people who are ordained but don’t currently have a position such as provost? Does it include non-Christian clergy?
p.s. Don’t forget to treat that cold carefully. My last bout of flu was in Scotland and it laid me flat out for several days and weak for several weeks.
> The quotes around “government” indicate that I think that Scottish Executive was a more appropriate term. <
And this from a priest of a church which spent almost the entire eighteenth century not recognising the Union?
Oh for those happy days, when the Scottish Episcopal Church was the SNP at prayer!
Unless the Scotland Act 1998 has been amended or repealed whilst I’ve been off sick, I think the proper legal name is still the Scottish Executive.
Thanks for the clarification.
Kelvin, to an old-fashioned Episcopalian the Scotland Act 1998 has no validity because it hasn’t received the assent of King Francis. Indeed, no valid Acts have been passed since King James VII’s time, which is rather nice – and you yourself, of course, as a clergyman of the de jure Established Church are entitled to St Mungo’s Cathedral and all its ample ancient revenues. You can buy us a drink from the proceeds.
I’d be inclined to think that things should be left as they are, and leave it to individual clerics to weigh up their sense of civic responsibility against their immediate duties to their flock (notably, funerals and other services).
Having said that, my own limited experience would suggest that jurors with certain addresses and occupations are very frequently rejected, which wastes everybody’s time.
For a different example of conflict between public duty and religious conscience, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm