I though this an interesting comment. Obviously some people disagree with the setup of the current justice system in the United States. I also don’t think it’s perfect, but I wouldn’t be comfortable abolishing the jury system.
I would be curious to hear from those who agree with quote above, and to hear what alternatives they have in mind. AI? That seems ludicrous to me at this point in time, but perhaps you disagree…
Sure, if you want a random verdict by a system which will ‘hallucinate’ the testimony and will demonstrate bias based upon its training set of past trials that is already badly tainted by prejudice.
Stranger
The obvious alternative, used in many countries, is that the judge decides guilt or innocence.
I think if I were innocent and on trial, I’d feel better with a judge.
Jurors produce semi-random verdicts.
But they absolutely prevent a collusion of judges and prosecutors and the executive from railroading anyone and everyone.
So it sort of depends on which snake you think is currently closest.
Juries were invented about 800 years ago to stymy an overweening Crown = executive. Right now we need them more than any time in our nation’s history. For the same reasons.
Bench trial with judge, or professional jurors. People whose full-time job it is to be jurors. Preferably with degrees in law, sociology, science, psychology or criminal justice.
I don’t think there is a better alternative. If the law is too complex to distill it down for twelve regular citizens to understand and render a decision according to the facts, then the problem is not with the jurors, but with the law. That’s not the opinion I entered law school with, but it is the opinion I graduated with.
Why on Earth would you jump to AI? You do know that most countries today don’t have juries? It’s mostly just a Common Law thing. There aren’t jury trials in most of continental Europe, and the Asian countries that adopted common law on independence have mostly abolished jury trials for being biased and unfair.
Places that don’t use lay juries have judges, or panels of judges, adjudicate guilt.
This is quite sensible. If a jury being ‘advised’ by prosecution and defense attorneys can’t make sense of the applicable law being explained, the (generally) non-lawyer defendant probably couldn’t have understood it well enough to have formulated intent. And while “a jury of one’s peers” is aspirational at best, drawing the pool from a quasi-random collection of adults at least ensures that different experiences and views will be represented. Contrast that with a single judge whose political leanings, personal beliefs, and experience might be highly prejudiced for or against the defendant and not contrasted with or discussed by anyone else in deliberations.
And consider that if Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstein had a bench trial, two innocent yutes would be in an Alabama prison now.
Stranger
I’m fine with a jury of my peers. Can you imagine being tried by a panel of three MAGA judges? I see a jury of my peers as another check against the powers of the government. I’m not too keen on getting rid of more checks in the current political climate.
As we know, there are absolutely no people in Alabama prison who were wrongfully convicted by a jury of their peers.
I have not checked all countries that have no juries but Japan leaps to mind.
Japan also has a 99.8% conviction rate so, either their police are exceptionally good at their jobs and never get it wrong or a lot of people end up in jail who probably shouldn’t (I have read the prosecutors cherry pick the best cases to go to trial…still, 99.8% is quite astonishing).
ETA: Or Japan’s defense attorneys are terrible at their jobs or some combo of that and the above.
I don’t know how the rate is calculated, but in the US only a fraction of a percent of people prosecuted for a federal crime are acquited; another nearly two percent are convicted at trial; and the rest plead guilty.
If the system in Japan makes it so that situations that in the US end with a plea deal (the vast, vast majority of federal cases) instead end in a conviction, then I’m not sure that there really is a vast difference there.
It would take a much deeper dive to know for sure, I think.
Here’s the situation in the US in 2022:
It really depends on who appoints/nominates or elects the judge. In some places you might be better off with a jury.
Also, it’s a lot harder to get out of jury duty these days. Most people called for jury duty cannot be excused easily so you get a much more representitive pool.
In Japan, they have lay judges.
The Japanese system is apparently unique[7]: Part B in that the panel consists of six lay judges, chosen randomly from the public, together with three professional judges, who come together for a single trial (like an Anglo-American jury) but serve as lay judges. As with any jury or lay judge system, it places a large amount of judicial power on randomly chosen members of the public with the aim of democratizing the judicial process. In this, Japan’s law states its purpose explicitly as seeking “the promotion of the public’s understanding of the judicial system and … their confidence in it.”[8]
A guilty verdict requires a numerical majority of nine judges that includes at least one professional judge. Accordingly, the three professional judges as a collective have a de facto veto on any conviction that would be delivered by the lay judges.[5] The Ministry of Justice specifically avoided using the term “jury” (Baishin-in) and use the term “lay judge” (Saiban-in) instead. Therefore, the current system is categorically not a jury system though this misunderstanding persists in common law countries due to lack of understanding of civil law criminal procedure.
According to the selection process, the judges selected were to be a minimum age of 20 and listed on the election lists. Judges must also have completed a secondary level education. The vote of a majority of the lay judges for acquittal results in acquittal, but for conviction a majority of the lay judges must be accompanied by the vote of at least one professional judge. Lay judges are allowed to directly question the defendant during the course of the trial and decide on the sentence corresponding to the verdict. The previous system relied only on a panel of professional judges, and the majority of cases brought forward by prosecutors were those where conviction was high. Citizens chosen who do not serve in their role would be fined 100,000 yen.
In South Korea, they have Citizen Participatory Trials.
The citizen participatory trial system was implemented in South Korea in 2008 in accordance with the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (ACPCT, Act No.8495, June 1, 2007, as amended by Act No.14839, July 26, 2017). According to the South Korean Constitution, all citizens have the right to be tried in conformity with the law by judges qualified under the Constitution and the law (Con. art. 27, para. 1).
The government introduced the ACPCT in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and transparency of judicial power, by enabling citizens to participate in trials as jury members. Based on article 27 of the Constitution, however, judgments are rendered by qualified judges. Juries’ decisions and opinions, therefore, do not bind the court. Accordingly, the ACPCT provides that while jury’s decisions may under conditions enumerated be considered by the judge before making a judicial determination, “[n]o verdict and opinions [by the jury] … shall be binding on the court” (art. 46(5)).
Art. 46 of the ACPCT regulates the procedures that apply to participation of citizens as jurors in trial. The article clarifies that,
(1) The presiding judge shall, upon closing of pleadings and arguments, explain to jurors in the court about essential points of prosecuted facts, applicable provisions of Acts, essential points of pleadings and arguments of the defendant and defense counsel, admissibility of evidence, and other significant matters. In such cases, an explanation about essential points of evidence may be also given, if necessary.
(2) Jurors taking part in a trial shall deliberate on whether guilty or not guilty after hearing the explanation under paragraph (1), and may deliver a verdict if the jury reaches an unanimous verdict: Provided, That the jury may hear opinions of judges who take part in the trial when a majority of jurors requests to do so.
(3) If the jury fails to reach an unanimous verdict of guilt or non-guilt, the jury shall hear opinions of judges who take part in the trial before delivering a verdict. In such cases, a verdict of guilt or non-guilt shall be concluded by a majority decision. Judges who take part in the trial shall not participate in the verdict, even in cases where they attend the deliberation and make statements on their opinions.
(4) If a verdict delivered pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) is guilty, jurors shall discuss sentencing with judges who take part in the trial and shall express their opinions. The presiding judge shall explain the extent of punishment and conditions of sentencing before discussing sentencing.
(5) No verdict and opinions under paragraphs (2) through (4) shall be binding on the court.
(6) Documents compiled with results of a verdict under paragraphs (2) and (3) and opinions under paragraph (4) shall be filed in the relevant trial records.
Conditions for Citizen Participatory Trials
There are three conditions for proceeding with the citizen participatory trial. First, the trial must address crimes that are punishable by one or more years of imprisonment or by capital punishment (ACPCT art. 5; Court Organization Act, Act No. 3992, Dec. 4, 1987, amended by Act No. 17689, Dec. 22, 2020 art. 32). The second condition is that the defendant wishes to be tried in a citizen participatory trial. A defendant must submit a written statement describing whether he/she desires a citizen participatory trial within seven days from the date on which the indictment is served (ACPCT art. 8). The third condition is that the court has not excluded the case from citizen participation. The court may exclude the case from citizen participation when the victim of a sexual crime or his/her legal representative does not want a participatory trial (ACPCT art. 9).
Selection of Jurors
The court chooses prospective jurors randomly from the juror pool list and serves summons for proceedings of selecting jurors and alternate jurors. In general, nine jurors participate in a trial of a case in which the defendant is subject to the death penalty or life imprisonment, and seven jurors participate in other cases (ACPCT art. 13).
Under the ACPCT, any Korean citizen over the age of 20 can serve as a juror (ACPCT art. 16). The head of a district court annually prepares a list of prospective jurors using the resident registration information of citizens aged 20 years or older who reside within its jurisdiction (ACPCT art. 22).
The court may exempt persons, such as people over 70 years of age, those who were arrested or detained under the law, or who have difficulty appearing in court due to serious illness, injury or disability, etc., from performing jury duties (ACPCT art. 20).
Fun fact: My wife and her immediate family members cannot serve on this because her brother is a police detective. Apparently that’s considered some kind of conflict of interest.
Not anyone represented by Vincent Gambino! He’s got a 100% rate of success in exonerating his clients and is a master of the voir dire!
Stranger
True, and while he did do an excellent job in the court room those two boys were almost certainly going to be convicted anyway. Mona Lisa Vito saved the day (to be fair, Gambino figured it out and got the testimony he needed so yeah…win for both).
Vincent Gambini (practicing as Jerry Callo) gets the best expert witnesses, the ones who can explain concepts such as “PosiTraction” and “independent rear suspension” to a lay jury of random Alabamans, and also knows that a question about the “correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor” is a bullshit question because Chevy didn’t make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn’t come out till '62.
Stranger
I honestly think that is the weak part. We are never led to believe Gambini would know such things so he could know to get Ms. Vito to provide expert testimony.
I don’t care though. So good.
As I commented in the other thread, I also don’t think it is perfect, but when people are aware of abuses of power…
Earlier in the movie Vinny explains to Mona Lisa about court procedure in terms of rebuilding a carburetor, establishing that he understands automotive work, and Positraction (a limited slip differential) is hardly an obscure concept; in fact Vincent’s Cadillac Series Sixty-Two Convertible gets stuck in the mud earlier because of its limited slip differential. She did err slightly that the Pontiac version of a limited slip differential was actually called “Safe-T-Track”, and actually in addition to the Corvette the Corvair also had Positraction and independent suspension but neither of those statements undermine her essential point that the 1964 Buick Skylark could not have possibly produced the marks on the curb.
Stranger