In my country of residence, there are no juries. All trial verdicts are delivered by judges.
But judges are completely insulated from political selection and influence. The judiciary is self-managed and self-selecting on the basis of professional criteria.
Obviously, yes, nothing is ever entirely apolitical. But the elected politicians have zero influence over the courts.
There is no good alternative, but that doesn’t mean that juries are a good idea.
The problem with juries is that they may be (and probably will) be composed by idiots.
The problem with having the judge decide is that the judge may be (and probably will be) an idiot.
The problem is not the system, the problem is humans.
In most US jurisdictions (all that I’m aware of) the defendant can have a judge trial instead of a jury trial, if that is their preference. They simply “waive jury.” Where I practiced, it wasn’t uncommon. Sometimes it made a huge difference. Other times, probably the same result. Juries are more unpredictable, so if the prosecution has a lot of evidence against you, you’d rather spin the wheel than have the judge decide. On the other hand, if the case is weak, you’d rather have a more predictable result.
Overall, though, based on 37 years depending on juries, I have to say I’m a fan. They usually do an amazing job under difficult circumstances.
Were I accused of a crime, I’d pick whatever option my lawyer advised me to pick, because I’d want to not be convicted of said crime.
But when thinking of how the system should be designed in terms of fairness, that sounds like a big, not a feature.
So you wouldn’t say it’s “beyond stupid”?
The jury I’ve been on wasn’t composed of idiots. I’ve had several friends who served on long jury trials, and they reported a very respectful, informed, and motivated jury pool. There certainly is a possiblilty of idiots on juries, but in my experience it’s not common.
I was exaggerating a bit with the “probably will” part.
With nearly 2 decades of working with juries on a regular basis in courtrooms, I agree with the sentiments expressed here. Jury duty is part of our civic responsibility. I have little respect for the attitude of “being too dumb to get out of jury duty,” which expresses contempt for those who take this part of good citizenship seriously.
Jury duty is difficult and often traumatic for those who are good enough to brave it. Sometimes juries do go off the rails, but most often, they are sincere and dedicated in their efforts to get it right.
I have long advocated for professional jurors, simply because I think the state of the law has indeed become too complex for the average person to grasp what is being tried before them in some cases. But in the absence of that option, I think layperson juries work pretty well. All respect to anyone who participates with a willing heart.
A jury of your peers is necessary to prevent overreach by government. Granted this can go in both ways. In the north during slavery, juries refused to convict abolitionists who attacked slave raiders who came north. meanwhile in the south, juries refused to convict white people who lynched black people.
But a jury of your peers is a necessary part of stopping government overreach because it puts the ability to punish people who break government laws in the hands of citizens, not the government itself. Besides a person can always request either a jury trial or a trial in front of a judge. So the defendant can pick which one they want.
Yup…all jurisdictions. It’s guaranteed in the US Constitution’s sixth amendment for criminal cases and seventh amendment for some (most these days I’d think) civil cases.
Sixth Amendment:
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 defence.
Seventh Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
It’s the worst form of justice, except for all the other ones.
What about some kind of system where the judge makes the call but the judge is being judged by jurors? If a judge is found to be prejudiced, he can be removed. The objective is to improve the quality of judges.
I only served on a jury once, and I can say with absolute certainty that it was not 12 idiots who didn’t manage to come up with an excuse to avoid jury service. The deliberations were extremely thoughtful and everyone took their job very seriously. Every one that I have talked to about their experiences said the same.
I’m wondering if the quote in the OP came from someone with no actual experience with how juries actually work.
The quote in the OP was deliberately hyperbolic, but the fact that jurors can be civically responsible individuals doesn’t mean that the system of randomly selecting people is a good one.
Every police officer I’ve ever met has been very respectful and professional. None of them were violent maniacs or murderers. They all took their job very seriously. But I wouldn’t presume that just because this is my personal experience that there is no police violence problem in the United States, or that anyone who points one out “has no experience with how the police actually work”.
Saying the people who serve on juries are too stupid to avoid jury duty is like saying people who show up to vote in elections are too stupid to figure out how to stay home and watch American Idol on election day.
But you are also not talking about scrapping the entire police system and starting over with something else.
AI robots as police?
I’d suggest the problem is not with the jurors but the system.
The jurors are only given a very controlled set of information and are not allowed to know the consequences of their decision. And often with a very tilted justice system that heavily favors the prosecutor. They can’t make the best decision under such circumstances but that is the hand they are dealt.
Sorry for the nitpick, but the Gambini and Rothenstein case never made it to the jury. The prosecutor dismissed all charges (with the judge’s very enthusiastic endorsement) after the defense’s three witnesses. So it wasn’t the jury that saved them.
If other successful countries, like all of continental Europe, had a perfectly viable alternative to offer, then I’d be much more open to it.
Europe doesn’t have juries, but they do have a police force.
Where’s this meme of AI coming from? The OP suggested the same thing as an alternative to juries. Seems completely daft. Is anyone suggesting this?
I mentioned it because you were comparing my comment regarding the topic to police.
As for why the OP included it in the topic of this thread, I have no idea. Seems daft to me, too. But that is the topic.