# A question about Courts and "Judgement by peers" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 28, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744 "2003-04-28T18:52:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aslan\_of\_Narnia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@Aslan\_of\_Narnia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aslan_of_Narnia)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/1 "2003-04-28T18:52:10Z")
I recall a law that states in America/Canada which states something along the lines of “judgement by a jury of peers”. So, does that mean a teenager would be judged by people his age? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/2 "2003-04-28T19:03:11Z")
No. In the egalitarian U.S., all citizens are peers of each other. This is in contrast to, say, medieval England, where one might be a commoner, a noble, or royalty, with his peers being other members of the same group. The various states may, and do, have age requirements for jury service, just as they do for voting. In fact, most states use voting rolls to select names for jury duty. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/3 "2003-04-28T19:19:02Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact, most states use voting rolls to select names for jury duty. They also use DMV records to get people who aren’t registered to vote. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/4 "2003-04-28T19:23:29Z")
By the way, the trial-by-jury doctrine, which comes to us from the good folks in England, is codified in the Constitution thusly: > [@](#): > > Amendment VI > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/5 "2003-04-28T19:25:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aslan2 \* > \*\*I recall a law that states in America/Canada which states something along the lines of “judgement by a jury of peers”. > > So, does that mean a teenager would be judged by people his age? \*\* No. The phrase “jury of peers” derives from the [Magna Carta](http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magnatranslation.html) (1215); it is a loose (but not inaccurate) translation of a phrase more precisely rendered as the “judgment of equals”: > [@](#): > > (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. The term “peer” or “equal” as used in the Magna Carta had not yet taken on its modern sociological connotation, in which a “peer” often refers to a “peer group” of a common age; instead, a “peer” was simply “a person who is of equal status, rank, or character with another.” _Black’s Law Dictionary_ 1152 (7th ed. 1999). The word still holds this meaning, for example in the context of “peer review”–that is, review by colleagues or experts in the same professional discipline. The “equality” involved in the “judgment of equals” meant equality of social status, so that a commoner who was accused by a noble of an offense was entitled to a trial by his or her fellow commoners, rather than by the noble accuser’s cronies. As Blackstone explains: > [@](#): > > The commonalty, like the nobility, are divided into several degrees; and, as the lords, though different in rank, yet all of them are peers in respect of their nobility, so the commoners, though some are greatly superior to others, yet all are in law peers, in respect of their want of nobility . . . . 1 William Blackstone, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_ 391 (1765). The phrases “jury of peers” and “judgment of equals” do not appear in the Constitution of the United States. But the Magna Carta’s article 39 does survive in recognizable form in the [fifth amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv): > [@](#): > > nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . . The concept of a “jury of peers” falls within the concept of “due process of law.” Because the new United States was a classless society, which constitutionally prohibited a noble class, the need for spelling out a “jury of peers” disappeared because everyone in the new society (well, at least all adult male freeholders, at first) was supposedly equal in the law’s eyes. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/6 "2003-04-28T19:29:35Z")
I see that **Gary T** and **friedo** beat me to it. Serves me right for not previewing (but then again, why waste all that typing? :)). ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/7 "2003-04-28T19:39:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > **The “equality” involved in the “judgment of equals” meant equality of social status, so that a commoner who was accused by a noble of an offense was entitled to a trial by his or her fellow commoners, rather than by the noble accuser’s cronies.** Which is also why, until recently at least (I don’t think that it’s still the case), in the UK, someone with a title of nobility who was accused of a crime had the right to be tried in the House of Lords. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/8 "2003-04-28T19:47:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > \*\*I see that **Gary T** and **friedo** beat me to it. Serves me right for not previewing (but then again, why waste all that typing? :)). \*\* But your answer was far more complete and informative, so don’t feel bad. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/9 "2003-04-28T19:49:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > \*\*I see that **Gary T** and **friedo** beat me to it. \*\* Ah, but the additional depth in your reply was most welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/10 "2003-04-29T02:46:23Z")
In Canada, the _Young Offenders Act_ was enacted in 1984, to regulate the trials of anyone who was under 18 and charged with a criminal offence. There was no provision for jury trials at first. That was challenged unsuccessfuly under the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_. The courts held that since a young person could not be sentenced to more than five years, the lack of jury didn’t breach the jury provision of the _Charter_ which reads: > [@](#): > > **11.** Any person charged with an offence has the right: > … > (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment. The Act has been amended to allow for punishments over five years, so now there is a provision for jury trials, but the jury pool is composed of those over 18, so far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-courts-and-judgement-by-peers/171744/11 "2003-04-29T14:56:16Z")
In the U.S., the accused has a right to a jury trial for any felony, which is typically defined as any crime for which the maximum sentence is more than one year imprisonment. –Cliffy