Judge refuses request for vaccinated jury
A Quebec judge has refused a request for a fully vaccinated jury, citing “privacy concerns and jury representativeness” as reasons.
The latter is interesting. Does a jury need to include both the vaccinated and those who are not vaccinated on principle, to represent a range of attitudes from the public?
Is choosing not to get vaccinated now on a level with things like religious or political beliefs?
If I were a juror, I certainly would not want to be seated next to people of unknown vaccination status, just as I decided not to work for Elections Canada this time because they too refused to mandate vaccinations for their workers.
steph 20:25 on 2021-09-18 Permalink
“When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” Norm Crosby
Kate 08:26 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
steph, when I was called up I was happy to serve, corny though it sounds, but I was rejected at jury selection after simply giving my name and occupation.
GC 09:08 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
I was also really happy to be called, but they found all the ones they needed before I was even screened.
Kate 09:53 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
I’ve wondered – can the lawyers Google the potential jurors? I couldn’t see any reason why I’d’ve been thrown out for merely saying I’m a graphic designer by trade, but could the lawyer have also known I do this blog, and thought it made me a dubious choice? (I don’t think it would, but I can see why someone might think so.)*
I’m probably kidding myself. They had called up several hundred anglos for this jury, since the trial was to be held in English, and they probably had no time to check all of us out.
*Both as an election poll worker and a census worker I’ve taken formal oaths not to reveal any private information, and I never have.
ant6n 11:17 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
While I think everybody should get vaccinated, I can also see that vaccination status is viewed as private medical information in most contexts. What if somebody requested not sit next to anybody who has AIDS. It’s not as dissimilar as you may think at first sight.
Ephraim 12:09 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
And yet, while it’s a matter of medical privacy, it’s also an indicator of the person’s ability to be influenced by fake information.
ant6n 12:23 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
Just like having AIDS would be an indicator whether you’re irresponsible enough to have non-safe sex.
Nicole 12:43 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
ant6n, that’s not a good analogy—you can’t catch AIDS from sitting next to a person who has it, but you can easily catch COVID that way
Ephraim 17:00 on 2021-09-19 Permalink
You can also get AIDS by other methods, other than unsafe sex, like IV needles, blood transfusions, organ transplants, being bitten by someone with HIV, breast milk, and in rare cases, by eating food pre-chewed by someone with HIV. You can also get even even if you practice safe sex and even if you are taking PREP. But in the case of COVID-19, not getting vaccinated is supposedly an “educated” choice. But there is an entire industry set up based on anti-vax information pumping based on misinformation.
ant6n 03:16 on 2021-09-20 Permalink
Remember, you can also catch COVID from a vaccinated person. The risk reduction for infections aren´t super clear, but it seems to be somewhere around 3x for delta. Thats enough to reduce r-scores and stem outbreaks, but not clear how it could weigh against giving up rights.
GC 08:33 on 2021-09-20 Permalink
Kate, I also doubt the lawyers have the time to Google all the potential jurors–especially the prosecution. Do they even get a list of names ahead of selection? Like I said, I didn’t make it as far as selection, but aren’t they able to dismiss some just based on gut feeling? Maybe they thought there were already enough women or people with Irish last names or whatever… I agree it’s unlikely they thought being a graphic designer would bias you, but it’s hard to be sure without the specifics of the case.
ant6n, AIDS = irresponsible sex??? Is that a bad joke, or are you still living in the 1980s?
Kate 10:09 on 2021-09-20 Permalink
GC, yes, that’s more or less where common sense led me as well. Any factor about me – my occupation, my appearance, the tone of my voice – could have decided the lawyer that I was unsuitable, and he didn’t have to explain why either. A good defence lawyer must have a finely honed instinct about what kind of people he can persuade most easily.
ant6n 11:05 on 2021-09-20 Permalink
@GC
Yes, it’s a joke. The same silly generalization as “not vaccinated = eats fake news for breakfast”