Last week on Jury Service was rather poignant. Part of a jury for a case of rape during the same week when we reflect most of the events leading to the cross of Jesus, including the false trial and all, which accompanies it.
One thing which struck me was the general unwillingness to convict someone as 'guilty'. Bearing in mind a jury is made up of twelve randomly selected individuals, there was a genuine care, expressed among the group of which I was a privileged part, to not rush towards a guilty conviction, which is where we ended up. Part of this seemed to be a concern 'what if we get it wrong'? partly it was a sincere desire to weight he evidence. Clearly, mingled in were all manner of personal issues I could only begin to guess at.
Jesus, however, was crucified partly as a result of the crowd crying 'crucify him' in response to the offer for his release. Would it have been any different had twelve of them been the jury? How do I respond differently to the item of news I instinctively react against, compared to the specific cases I have to engage with seriously?
Meanwhile, the world trundles on - Gordon Brown should be announcing a General Election later today for what everyone already assumes will be May 6th. This will be an interesting few weeks - at present I'm planing to vote Conservative, despite my socialist, labour roots and primary instincts - what's that all about? I've given up any hope of 4th place in the premiership now, so the General Election will provide a useful side-track!