A recent article in  American Sociological Revue, about which a blog was written on the Psychology Today website by Dr. Gad Saad, concluded that of all cultural subgroups in America today, atheists are the most mistrusted and “detested”.

For 15 years we have been collecting data from focus groups and, when possible, from court venires.  It has usually taken the form of an open-ended question:  “Have you ever supported—now or in the past—any church, temple, or other religious organization?  If yes, please explain.”  In litigation that has been specifically tied to church issues (such as our work on cases of sexual abuse of children or parishioners by clergy) the questions get far more detailed.  While I understand my own reasoning behind the form of the question (discussed below), I realize now that I have omitted atheists and those who hold to their own non-institutional views of spirituality, creation, and fate.

Living in Austin, home of atheist activist Madelyn Murray O’Hair and her born-again Christian son, I read these reports and pondered the question “what difference would it make”?  I can’t be sure.  We do know that the more religiosity an individual professes, no matter where they live in the world, the more likely they are to be punitive toward the perpetrator of victimless crimes. So perhaps there are good reasons to assess the lack of belief/religiosity as well as the presence of those beliefs.  You start before jury selection by profiling what jurors you think you can live with, and which cause you concern.  Put the spotlight on jurors you suspect are unsupportive of your case, and keep the rest out of sight.

The reason that I have asked the form of the question noted above relates to the value of understanding the social cohort of the juror, and what pressure they might experience if they supported my client’s position.  For instance, given the tragic impact of the Bernie Madoff scandal on the American Jewish community, my radar would be alerted as regards Jewish jurors in any case related to alleged financial transgressions.  If someone was a member of an evangelical Christian church, I would have concerns about their view of a plaintiff in a medical negligence case, due to the prevalence of tort reform rhetoric in that community, as well as the possible role of religious fatalism (“it must be God’s plan”) among those who embrace conservative religious dogma.

While this is intuitive and not research based, my view of atheist or even agnostic jurors is relatively pro-plaintiff (civil cases) and pro-defense (criminal cases).  By dint of their willingness to publically embrace a socially “reviled” belief system, they are willing to stand against public pressure to conform, and will be more willing to firmly adhere to their own take on the facts.  Rhetoric, authority, and social conformity will hold less sway for them.

A greater problem attaches to the issue of an atheist client, if such information is disclosed to the jury.  Most readers are now likely saying “that has no probative value—it should not be permitted in evidence”, which is almost always true.  Yet, if the client has ever commented on it in public, or if those opposed to the client have raised it in public, it will be on the internet.  And as our blogging on internet issues has discussed, you are safest assuming that what is on the web is in the jury room.  One way that jurors connect with litigants is through affiliations.  “She must be a responsible person—she volunteers with Meals on Wheels”; “He is a deacon in his church, he must be honest”, etc.  If ever it is crucial to have a likeable client, it is in a situation where that person is a member of a cultural subgroup that is viewed negatively or fearfully.  The issue of religion is not just one of spiritual community, but also one of ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’; ‘like-me’ and ‘not like-me’; ‘home-team’ and, sadly, ‘away, away’.

Related posts:

1. Derogating do-gooders [like vegetarians] is how I roll
2. The Jury Room: A new blawg
3. BE MORE LIKE ME!
4. Redux: Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman (with appreciation to Tammy Wynette, Linda Ronstadt and Anne Reed)
5. “Reactions vary along traditional partisan lines”