PDF Format – 1999 Voters Guide

Side Bars – Who We Are – The Name – Christian, not Conservative – A 19th Century Christian Theologian’s Comments on Secular Conservatism – Crime and Restitution – Juries: Past and Present – The Notorious Ox and Safety – Self-Incrimination and the Bible – Judges versus Computers – Open Pits and Paying Your Own Way

Ballot Recommendations Summary Measure 68 Measure 69 Measure 70 Measure 71 Measure 72 Measure 73 Measure 74 Measure 75 Measure 76

Juries: Past and Present
The history of the jury system is a long and fascinating one. Our American jury system is derived from English law, which in many ways grew explicitly from Biblical law. In the Bible, juries seem to find their roots in the “elders in the gate” who would meet for governance (See Dt. 21:19,20; 22:15; 25:7; Joshua 20:4; Ruth 4:2,11; Lam. 5:14). These lay “juries” of men were distinct from the professional judges that Deuteronomy 16:18-20 says each city should have. An example of the working of the elders in the gate is found in the book of Ruth. Boaz assembles ten of these elders to hear and affirm his case in regards to Ruth.

This Biblical system found its way into English law. In 9th century England, the renowned Anglo-Saxon Christian King, Alfred the Great, went about writing laws for England. He looked to an earlier work by St. Patrick, the 5th century missionary to Ireland. Patrick’s book, the Liber Ex Lege Moisi, or Book of the Law of Moses, looked to the Old Testament for a model of civil governance. Perhaps Patrick had in mind Deuteronomy 4:7,8, which says the all nations should look to the so-called Law of Moses as they seek to be wise in writing civil laws.

One of the many Christian reforms that Alfred, building on Patrick, brought to England, and eventually to us, was the right to a trial by jury. This would later be reinforced in the context of the Norman conquest of England in 1066, and again would be codified in Magna Carta in 1215.

The Assize (legislative assembly) of Clarendon in 1166 also reiterated the use of the jury. During the reign of Henry II (1154-1189), 12 “good and lawful men” in each village were assembled to reveal the names of those suspected of crimes.

Twelve as the number of jurors for “petty juries” (as opposed to “grand juries”) has been established in England for centuries. In Guide to English Juries published in 1682, it is said that twelve is the number because “In analogy of late, the jury is reduced to the number of 12, like the prophets were 12 to foretell the truth, the Apostles 12 to preach the truth, the discoverers [spies] 12 sent into Canaan to seek and report the truth; and the stones 12 that the heavenly Jerusalem is built on.”

Clearly, the English forerunners of our American juries were Christian in origin and intent. And clearly they played a very important role in society, being compared to the 12 foundation stones of the heavenly Jerusalem! And just as clearly, their mission was the truth, and relief from oppression of the King or a tyrannical State.

Our very independence as a nation is owed in part to juries. According to a website maintained by the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, “Colonial Grand Juries refused to indict leaders of the Stamp Act (1765), and refused to bring libel charges against the editors of the Boston Gazette (1765). A union with other colonies to oppose British taxes was supported by the Philadelphia Grand Jury in 1770.”

Today, Ballot Measure 70 seeks to give the jury system as a tool to the State, instead of leaving it in the hands of a citizenry who have always turned to it for relief from tyranny. We thus urge a “No” vote on Measure 70.

Another factor in our recommendation is the generally poor quality of American juries. To cite again the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, they called on 12 “good and lawful men” to compose the jury. In colonial America, jurors had to be freeholders. That is, they had to be men who owned property free and clear of debts and encumbrances. Debt-free living showed responsibility. These responsible men were presupposed to know biblical law, with an ability to apply it. In the early stages of the jury system in England, the jurors were frequently those who knew the details of the particular case, and the character of the parties involved, and were thus in a better position to judge the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

Today, affirmations of obedience to Christ’s law in the Bible, or any obvious knowledge of the law, the particulars of the case, or the character of the men involved, are usually grounds for removal from jury duty. Even literacy is no longer a requirement, for either voting or serving on a jury determining the future of other people’s lives. Therefore, we believe now is not the time to remove the ancient unanimity requirement for juries in murder cases, as proposed in Measure 72.

The “dumbed-down” juries of 1999 are far more prone to suggestion and manipulation by ardent prosecutors and able defense lawyers. Ballot Measure 75 would at least remove known felons from the juror pool for 15 years. We support this “baby step” back to the juries of our forefathers.

This voters' guide produced by Parents Education Association, PAC.