Trial by jury! Why?

[FredLC]

I've been browsing the site and I've seen the recent thread about the infamous Casey Anthony case.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=429924

Seems to be somewhat of a consensus that the jury judged right, due to the lack of conclusive evidence, and I have little or nothing to add to the analysis there (as I'm scarcely aware of details of the case, and equally little about technicalities of US criminal law standards and practices).

However, I spotted there another issues, which I'd like to see addressed- the institution of the jury.

IFAIK, jury duty is really a big thing in the US; even small civilian things go to trial by jury due to constitutional guarantee of judgment by pairs.

The jury is an institution that also exists in Brazil, however much diminished. The jury is sovereign, but rules only in cases of willful murder (murder 1 by US jargon, if memory serves).

I always have been much critical of this, because seems to me that the expert analysis of legal details is avoided exactly where it is most needed, the instances of severe crimes facing strong punishments.

My criticism, however, goes deeper. I don't like the institute of the jury at all, I don't like the idea that the power to determine conviction or innocence stays with laymen.

I quite understand the distrust of authority which spawned this idea in the first place, but I'd rather address it with accountability of the authorities for crass error or dishonesty, than with concentrating the power in people who's actually competence to exercise judgment is questionable.

I know people think it's better to be judged by a group of peers, but isn't a judge also a citizen, accountable as anyone? A commoner who rose not due to birth or title, but due to having proved to being capable? Since nobility is no longer recognized, does the distrust of authority, judges, even make sense?

Why don't we have public committees conditioning the duties of legislators, or governors? If the answer is because they are temporary, well... the consequences of their decisions outlast them! If it is because judges aren't elected, being less vulnerable to the opinion of the public, well, this has a good reason - that authority to judge isn't swayed by pressure or public outcry. So, isn't placing the decision into people, not in these shielded authorities, something that defeats this very purpose? Maybe it would make more sense to simply elect judges, eligible from technically able people...

I'd like to know if you people agree with the idea that it's better to be judged by a committee of citizens rather than by a technically able authority, and if so, for what reason you guys prefer it.

Regards .

 

[Berzerker]

Since nobility is no longer recognized, does the distrust of authority, judges, even make sense?

you haven't met Congress

jury nullification is our last lawful defense against the state, its more important than occasional verdicts the majority doesn't like

 

[mechaerik]

I remember a movie quote that went along the lines of "the jury system was invented so a judge couldn't just hang a man he didn't like".

 

[ParkCungHee]

I know people think it's better to be judged by a group of peers, but isn't a judge also a citizen, accountable as anyone? A commoner who rose not due to birth or title, but due to having proved to being capable? Since nobility is no longer recognized, does the distrust of authority, judges, even make sense?

I think it makes even more sense now. Nobles are only united by accident of birth, and a vague-socieconomic status, that has become more vague as time went on. Judges on the other hand must attend the same schools, sit on the same professional organization, and work in the same environment etc. etc. If we have members of the bar accuse, judge and then convict people, well, I wouldn't want to make any judges cross.

However, I think something your also underestimating is the importance of the appeals process in the American system. Any evidence or even suspicion that the issue lies in the Jury failing to understand the nature of the law would immediately go to a judge, who has the power to overturn a jury's ruling.

 

[Hygro]

yeah, the nice thing about juries is that they had no ambition to be there, so there's no personality complex to worry about. Judges tend to be more ambitious overall, and my experience with ambitious people is that they tend to skew to the extremes on being either forgiving or unforgiving. I wouldn't trust them. I don't like juries either, but I haven't come up with anything better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think the reason is primarily due to our past heritage as subjects of an authoritarian ruler where commoners were frequently railroaded and the aristocracy were rarely found guilty, which you alluded to above. At least the former has changed to some extent as a result.

Does it still make sense? I think there is a greater chance of justice from a jury of your peers than a military courts martial, for instance.

In this country, I believe in most cases the defendant is given a choice. In the situations where there is a large amount of negative public sentiment, like the Casey Anthony case, it would probably be better to be in the hands of a judge than a jury. But I don't think that is an option when the charge is murder.

 

[amadeus]

In this country, I believe in most cases the defendant is given a choice. In the situations where there is a large amount of negative public sentiment, like the Casey Anthony case, it would probably be better to be in the hands of a judge than a jury.

A judge is no less subject to public pressure than a jury and I would fear that giving judges that power in high-profile cases could result in abuse for personal financial or political gain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

A lot of it would have to do with the judge, as well. You really don't want to be at the mercy of a law-and-order "hanging judge" who typically sides with the prosecution on virtually all issues. Just having one presiding over your case is bad enough.

 

[Takhisis]

I remember a movie quote that went along the lines of "the jury system was invented so a judge couldn't just hang a man he didn't like".

A lot of it would have to do with the judge, as well. You really don't want to be at the mercy of a law-and-order "hanging judge" who typically sides with the prosecution on virtually all issues. Just having one presiding over your case is bad enough.

In civilised countries what was abolished was the death penalty so a panel of overemotional randomly chosen people with next to no knowledge of the law wouldn't sentence a person to a cruel death.

 

[Camikaze]

The American system seems way too political to leave it up to judges. A judge might want to give the impression that they are very much a 'law and order' type, because this might help them gain higher appointment in future. Same deal with having elected prosecutors. Juries don't have such an incentive. Their only real incentive is to come to a conclusion that they believe is right. I guess there's a slight incentive towards the most expedient verdict, but that's not nearly as big as the systemic incentive the judge has. Trust of judges is obviously important, but in such a system I honestly wouldn't want to have to have to trust them that much.

 

[Gigaz]

I remember a movie quote that went along the lines of "the jury system was invented so a judge couldn't just hang a man he didn't like".

I don't believe that a trial would be allowed to start when the judge and the defendant know each other.
Scientific studies have shown that an expert's decision in his field is hardly influenced by peer pressure.

 

[Mark1031]

It is a check on the massive power of the judicial system. Sure judges know the rules and they still greatly control the outcome but a group of peers offers more experiences that can be used to arrive at justice.

 

[Elrohir]

Fred, this might be a difference between common law and civil law systems -- here in the US, judges are often elected at the local level. Having elected officials decide what evidence may be presented and all the other minutiae of a trial, as well as rendering a verdict, would render the system far too open to corruption and abuse.

Plus, traditions going back the better part of a thousand years are kinda nifty.

 

[Jehoshua]

meh, better than trial by combat.

Furthermore at the very least a jury prevents abuse of power by having random people come along to adjudicate the case. If it was just the judge and his legal bedfellows I would agree that one would not want to anger a judge (or bring a case against one).

 

[Formaldehyde]

In civilised countries what was abolished was the death penalty so a panel of overemotional randomly chosen people with next to no knowledge of the law wouldn't sentence a person to a cruel death.

As a juror, you don't usually have the luxury of circumventing the existing laws, even though jury nullification still occasionally occurs, especially under those exact circumstances. But I would never serve on a jury that had to make that decision. I would excuse myself on the grounds that I would likely do just that.

What I find particularly reprehensible is that many states only require a majority of the 12 jurors to decide to execute someone instead of requiring a unanimous decision.

In the jury which I served last year, I was amazed that a detective could coach the victim to a huge extent to make a secretly recorded phone call to the plaintiff, which would literally provide the only real substantial evidence that a crime had occurred when he essentially confessed. But that is apparently quite legal to do so. Even so, the other jury members did not realize the importance of what he had stated until we intently listened to his exact words during deliberation. It was very difficult to make out exactly what was said over the PA system in the court room.

All in all, I was incredibly impressed by the entire proceeding. The system can work amazingly well when jurors who are intelligent, rational, and interested enough that justice be served can be found. Even the judge, who was a Bush appointee, impressed me with his demeanor and even-handedness.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'd like to know if you people agree with the idea that it's better to be judged by a committee of citizens rather than by a technically able authority, and if so, for what reason you guys prefer it.

It used to be that the jury was a means to put power in the hands of the people, but it seems, in the US anyway, that it is just an invitation to fool and demagogue the people as much as in politics. The jury is not exactly a council of one's peers but an extension of the interests of the opposing counsels, since they're the ones who pick them. And where their ignorance becomes most apparent is in trials where much technical information is required, and where common sense has less reliance. There, they can easily be confused by counsel to ignore evidence that is beyond their understanding.

I would rather have a jury that was truly of one's peers, where counsels had no part. But if it was up to me, I'd rather have no jury at all, and let 1 or more judges make the verdict. At least one can be reasonably certain that they cannot all be fooled by counsels.

 

[illram]

I always have been much critical of this, because seems to me that the expert analysis of legal details is avoided exactly where it is most needed, the instances of severe crimes facing strong punishments.

My criticism, however, goes deeper. I don't like the institute of the jury at all, I don't like the idea that the power to determine conviction or innocence stays with laymen.

Expert analysis of legal details is not conducted by juries in our system. Legal questions are decided by the Judge. All the jury does is decide the facts. Was the light red? Did he pull the trigger?

As for determining guilt--if this power is limited to fact finding, why can't a "layman" be expected to perform that job?

 

[civver_764]

Trial by humans is always going to have those problems, but I'd rather be judged by a jury than just a single judge who can much more easily have some sort of outside incentive.

You're addressing the symptoms of the problem anyways, and not the problem itself.

 

[Farm Boy]

Expert analysis of legal details is not conducted by juries in our system. Legal questions are decided by the Judge. All the jury does is decide the facts. Was the light red? Did he pull the trigger?

As for determining guilt--if this power is limited to fact finding, why can't a "layman" be expected to perform that job?

I was hoping this was going to be mentioned.

In jury trials the judge remains the interpreter and finder of law. That is why they are responsible for sentencing, what evidence is admissable, what arguments can be considered.. Juries are only only finders of fact, therefore guilt. If a criminal case goes to appeal, what is appealed is the interpretation and implementation of the law. The jury decisions as to the facts of the case are very rarely questioned.

Of all the things that annoy me with the US Judicial system, I rather like this one. The standard of proof for criminal charges in the US being "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury of 12 peers seems remarkably equitable. I don't this necessarily has to be based off of a distrust of authority, though there is certainly some of that present, it rather eloquently provides a system that keeps criminal fact finding from being applied from out of date statutes. It helps base criminal convictions off a "reasonable citizen" standard. Nothing is perfect, this is no exception. The Jim Crow South has some horrible history with the jury system. Jury selection has evolved somewhat since then. I do find it somewhat comforting that in order to be sentenced with a criminal conviction I at least have the right to be vindicated or condemned by 12 peers rather than just one powerful old man.

 

[BvBPL]

First off, it should be noted that many jurisdictions in the United States elect their judges and some of those elect them to finite terms after which they may be eligible for reelection. The jobs of these judges are made political which, I think, necessitates a jury.

Secondly, while there is a popular notion that juries within the United States are the ultimate determinates of guilt, judges in fact have a fair ability to influence a trial. The judge is the arbiter of motions for directed and summary judgments and judgments not withstanding verdicts. This is not to say that the jury is powerless, merely that trial proceedings can make juries less important.

Related to this is the fact that judges are not merely sitting in judgment but are also in charge of procedural manners during a trial. Making a judge responsible for both procedure and solely responsible for judgment places a very heavy burden upon that one person. Having a jury whose sole job is to assess guilt eases this burden.

Finally I think there’s a case for jury trials to be made when we examine the burden of proof. In the US, criminal prosecutions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. Now a judge’s day to day judge involves looking over a lot of people many of whom are guilty of some crime. It would seem to me that this experience would color one’s perceptions to the point where the reasonable assessments of guilt and innocence made by a person sitting in daily judgment over others may be compromised, or at least may be out of synch with either the facts or the understanding of the citizenry. Having citizen jurors, who are fresh to the court, sit in judgment instead helps to avoid this peril.

Which raises the question: what is the burden of proof for criminal (and civil) cases in Brazil?

--

The better case against jury trials, at least in the US, is that juries are not, in fact, constructed of one’s peers, but rather people who were too dumb to figure a way out of jury duty.