Random questions.

[CountValentine]

That's what I'm saying; it's possible there is a (relatively) blanket ruling, but we (DDF members) aren't aware of it since it's not really applicable all too often.

No one has jury duty?
I guess if they ask you a question you can say I have to ask LOR and that should get you kicked off. 

[Euclid]

No one has jury duty?
I guess if they ask you a question you can say I have to ask LOR and that should get you kicked off. 

I don't know anyone personally that has ever served on an actual case, let alone one with this dilemma.

[ExGingi]

No one has jury duty?
I guess if they ask you a question you can say I have to ask LOR and that should get you kicked off. 

There you go. You're starting to figure out the Jewish smarts. 

[CountValentine]

I don't know anyone personally that has ever served on an actual case, let alone one with this dilemma.

There you go. You're starting to figure out the Jewish smarts. 

Not participating in one of the most important civic duties is smarts (rhetorical)? 

[Yehuda57]

I don't know anyone personally that has ever served on an actual case, let alone one with this dilemma.

There are threads here with a few experiences posted (myself included)

[Yehuda57]

Cases are unique but the question applies to all cases. If there is a conflict will you decide by secular or religious law.
It does not get anymore black and white than that.

I doubt this question comes up all that often, and probably wouldn't need a blanket ruling as I'd think any problematic case would be super specific. But I'd be shocked if there aren't numerous halachic responsa on the topic.

I am by no means an halachic expert, and would love to hear what I'm getting wrong (as I'm sure I will get plenty wrong).

In general, Halacha would only need to be adhered to if one or both parties were Jewish. Even then, in almost all civil cases, the law of land becomes the halacha. It's tough to imagine a case, even involving Jews, that would be problematic.

With non Jews, "halacha" would only be applicable in cases of the 7 Noahide laws (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm) one of which is establishing courts of justice, which could not enforce justice which runs counter to the other 6.

Most of those laws would not be a factor in jury cases, and for stealing and killing, I would think being on a jury would be a way of fulfilling that commandment. This may actually make jury duty an obligation, not just permisable, I'd be interested to hear how that has been addressed.

One blanket exception I would guess would be capital punishment, which I imagine no rabbi would allow someone to be party to. But all potential jurors who would vote against capital punishment are not selected for such cases, not just halacha-observant Jews.

[Euclid]

There are threads here with a few experiences posted (myself included)

I guess I should work on getting to know more people personally

[CountValentine]

I guess I should work on getting to know more people personally

Just get out more! 

[Yehuda57]

I guess I should work on getting to know more people personally

That could be another random question, at what stage of conversing with someone online do you consider it "knowing them personally"?

[Yo ssi]

That could be another random question, at what stage of conversing with someone online do you consider it "knowing them personally"?

Never

[Yehuda57]

Never

So I meet you in person at a shabbos meal, I know you personally. I converse with you every day for years, I know your opinions on almost every topic, I know your hobbies, what music you like, when you have simchas, and a host of other tidbits, like when you last called a plumber, what much of your investment portfolio looks like, and how you voted in the last election, but I still don't know you personally?

[CountValentine]

So I meet you in person at a shabbos meal, I know you personally. I converse with you every day for years, I know your opinions on almost every topic, I know your hobbies, what music you like, when you have simchas, and a host of other tidbits, like when you last called a plumber, what much of your investment portfolio looks like, and how you voted in the last election, but I still don't know you personally?

Now you got it.

[Yo ssi]

personally

=

in person

[Yehuda57]

=

As I've just shown, that's either silly or worthless

[ExGingi]

In general, Halacha would only need to be adhered to if one or both parties were Jewish. Even then, in almost all civil cases, the law of land becomes the halacha. It's tough to imagine a case, even involving Jews, that would be problematic.

As I pointed out above, I believe civil standards on admissibility of evidence and acceptance of testimony differs from Halacha. This could create a major problem. (Just look at how a bank heter iska is worded, it sets the bar of proof much higher than civil law, and one cannot subpoena or rely on the other side's records to establish their claim).

Take for example an area somewhat related to my area of practice. What Halacha says about how a person's estate is divided, and what civil law says (including what makes a "will" valid) are totally different. If ruling based on civil law it could be considered גזל according to Halacha.

[Yehuda57]

As I pointed out above, I believe civil standards on admissibility of evidence and acceptance of testimony differs from Halacha. This could create a major problem. (Just look at how a bank heter iska is worded, it sets the bar of proof much higher than civil law, and one cannot subpoena or rely on the other side's records to establish their claim).

Take for example an area somewhat related to my area of practice. What Halacha says about how a person's estate is divided, and what civil law says (including what makes a "will" valid) are totally different. If ruling based on civil law it could be considered גזל according to Halacha.

And how many of such disputes would be subject to a jury trial?

[aygart]

(Just look at how a bank heter iska is worded, it sets the bar of proof much higher than civil law, and one cannot subpoena or rely on the other side's records to establish their claim). 

The wording of a heter iska is very different and is specifically to make it EXTREMELY difficult to prove.

[grodnoking]

As I've just shown, that's either silly or worthless

I politely disagree, you may know much of what I like and what I follow, but you have no idea of my personality,  which is probably the single biggest character trait of a person that will lead you to deciding whether you would like to spend the rest of your life without them. And personality is able to be seen by having a shabbos meal together, forsure.

[Yehuda57]

I politely disagree, you may know much of what I like and what I follow, but you have no idea of my personality,  which is probably the single biggest character trait of a person that will lead you to deciding whether you would like to spend the rest of your life without them. And personality is able to be seen by having a shabbos meal together, forsure.

How did you get from "knowing someone personally" to "spending your life together"?

[ExGingi]

The wording of a heter iska is very different and is specifically to make it EXTREMELY difficult to prove.

Indeed. But you still have various witnesses who wouldn't be admissible according to Halacha but accepted in civil law. Relying on their testimony to extract money could be problematic.