appendix — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
Appendix I. On Jurors
- Jurors, so called because of the oath which they take about rightly exercising the office entrusted to them, are men selected from the chief citizens to discharge some part proper to judges. They are employed only in criminal causes, and their office is to pronounce concerning the existence of the fact and the culpability of the accused; but afterward the judges decree the penalty according to the law. The institution of jurors, taken from the English, was created in favor of the accused, so that the fact might be examined by grave men designated by lot, with no malicious affection toward the accused, as being for the most part wholly unknown to them, and therefore so that that fact might be known more certainly.
1 On the title above. ** The question whether this institution of jurors contributes to the common good is not part of our undertaking. Indeed, it has against it the judgment and practice of all previous centuries. Moreover, since right judgment depends finally on the expertise and integrity of those judging, will it be permitted to hope for this from those jurors rather than from ordinary judges? Recall the things that happened in England concerning those who, some years ago, plotted against the life of the Emperor of the French. You have the inconveniences and absurdities of this English institution excellently set forth by Saint-Paul.
Jurors are taken from notable citizens determined by law. The body of jurors (le Jury) consists of twelve citizens for each case to be judged.
Jurors who by lot are designated for the session of the Court called d’Assises contract the same obligations as the judges themselves, whose office in great part they exercise; and therefore concerning jurors, as concerning the judges themselves, one must speak generally.
- QUESTION. Whether a JUROR can give a vote against the accused, who indeed has been juridically convicted of the crime, but whose innocence he certainly knows by private knowledge?
Resp. No. The reason is that this seems contrary to the mind of the law. For jurors must pronounce only concerning the fact, and according to the intimate conviction which they have about its existence, nor in any way are they bound to render a legal reason for their sentence. Indeed from the law itself they are not bound to found their sentence either on such and such a number of witnesses, or on these or those reasons brought forward from the various sides, etc. Therefore they must give their vote only according to that which they feel in the forum of conscience. And so, with regard to the office which is imposed on jurors, it is easily plain that those controversies which are debated about judges, n. 2, by no means have place concerning them.