Since I have watched “Twelve Angry Men” half a dozen times, I have no problem with using a jury to determine guilt.
The issue I have is with allowing juries to set damages in civil trials, like in the recent Hulk Hogan-Gawker one.
In my opinion, that outcome was a mockery and the jurors should have been held in contempt of court, especially when stated that they wanted to send a message to Gawker. I really don’t think that is supposed to be their job.
I’d be up for trial by rap battle.
In agreement that I don’t value the opinions or intellectual ability of the common man. However, I can’t say that I value the opinion of people in the system, either. There are many, many incompetent, ignorant, dysfunctional people in the legal system.
It may have been pointed out already, but another advantage of a jury trial for the defense is that it is more challenging to achieve unanimity among a group of 5, 6, 12, whatever number of jurors. The prosecution only has to convince a single judge, or a smaller panel of judges in some jurisdictions throughout the world. Thus, trial by jury does more to protect the rights of the accused.
As I said earlier, trial by judge and trial by jury have their respective advantages and disadvantages, but I disagree with the idea that trial by jury does anything more to “protect the rights” of the accused. Rights are protected by the rules of evidence and the fair weighing thereof, not by the random predilections of some random jurors. Random jurors are just as likely to be swayed by emotion to a finding of guilt than they are to be skeptical of evidence. There was a big controversial trial here recently in which a judge found the defendant innocent, and much speculation as to whether a jury would have done the same.
Right, take away the power to decide innocence or guilt from the common people and give it to the professional classes.
That’s sure to go well.
We the People, in order to avoid anarchy, have hired ourselves a group of people to protect our rights. We’ve instructed those employees of ours to step in and interfere in our behalf, whenever our rights are violated. That, essentially, is what the government is. Nowhere should those people have the right to interfere to the extent of violating our rights themselves . . . except in the case of criminals who, if guilty, have relinquished some of their own rights. But this doesn’t mean that the government, our employees, should be in the business of dictating who should live and who should die. Criminals are citizens too, and in a life-or-death issue, the question should be settled by their fellow-citizens, not a dictatorial government.
Says you.
OK, how about this. A judge was ready to throw my wife in jail for 6 months minus a day for contempt of a court order re: custody. Even after
YET after all that the judge was still about to declare her guilty because of her vagina and the fact her ex’s attorney was part of the Judge’s local old-boys network.
THAT is why we have trial by jury.
You guys do realize there are many first world countries that do not have trial by jury. I think a person’s view might be colored by what they consider “normal”. I for one shiver at the thought of a jury of “my peers” being responsible for my fate (were I ever to be in that unfortunate position). A bench of professional judges will do fine, thank you.
I’d think wolfpup is right in saying both have up sides and down sides.
It’s expensive.
I was dragged into a nuisance lawsuit a few years ago. My attorney filed a motion demanding a jury trial as a tactical maneuver.
Faced with the expense of proceeding with depositions, the two primary parties in the suit quickly settled.
In some cases, yes, but I think overwhelmingly no.
For yes, I can definitely imagine situations where the laws are incredibly complicated and difficult for laymen to understand. How many people’s eyes glaze over at “lawyer-speak”? Certainly if we’re talking about complicated financial law or whatnot, we’re wasting a lot of time and effort getting experts in just to explain the minutiae of the law before they can even get into the facts and, perhaps if we just had judges who already understood it and just needed to hear the facts, maybe some of these expensive complex cases could be done faster and cheaper for everyone.
Also, presumably, a judge will be better prepared than a random citizen to think logically and within the confines of the law. How well can an average citizen avoid an appeal to emotion? How well can an average citizen disregard things that have been stricken from the record? How well can an average citizen really put aside his own prejudices or gut feelings in a particular case?
What I see as the biggest selling point for juries, though, is the moral and ethical assertion inherent in it. It is not “The Government” judging and imposing punishment, it is the people. Similarly, if a person or a group is suing the government, it means that it’s ultimately the people deciding if it is just rather than some member of the government. That is, juries, along with public trials, is supposed to be a check against a tyrannical or corrupt government. Without it, a few judges sympathetic to a particular cause can easily throw dissidents in prison, impose harsh penalties, or whatever. Sure, there’s a cost to that, but I think it’s generally worth it.
And as far as controlling for biases and explaining laws, there are controls for that. For example, there’s 12 jurors and they must be unanimous, which goes a long way. There’s also jury selection, if a particular jury member appears to have biases, they can be rejected. If one side makes a bad argument, the other side gets to point it out and try to instill reason into the jurry. I think this is precisely why a right to representation is important. Sure, someone who has more money can afford a better lawyer, but would it be any better with a pre-appointed judge or set of judges? They have their biases. Hell, we see what happens with SCOTUS and they often judge along political ideologies, and these are, in theory, the best judges we have to offer. If they can’t even put aside their biases consistently, how can you expect that to be the case in lower courts.
As a followup to my earlier posts, in many cases the system differs greatly from the theory. I read Blaster Master’s post and this leapt out at me
And I’d like him to reconcile that view with what happened to my wife.
What happens when the police feel it is more important to get a conviction (isn’t that the prosecutor’s job?) than figure out who committed the crime and that means that a defendant is in court of substandard evidence? The three parties (police, prosecutor and judge) should be relatively independent of each other and be the checks in the system but often they are not and thus the citizens as a jury are the check on the system.
I would say that is a reason for juries rather than against them. If the law is so complex that a common citizen cannot understand it than how can a common citizen be expected to follow said law?
Jury Nullification… its a thing
I think that pretty soon they’d get blase about each case, and build up biases about lawyers and judges. It could go for more convictions or more acquittals.
The criminal case I was on was pretty minor (the DA let a new grad try it) but we the jury still treated it seriously.
BTW everyone on my jury and 99.9% of prospective jurors I’ve seen questioned treated it seriously.
Overall, most judges (at least federal, but I am presuming local/state are similar) are former prosecutors and thus I think asahi is closer to being correct that juries protect the rights of defendants. It may not apply to all cases, for example juries may get more emotional over some crimes compared to judges, but overall many judges seem to be from the prosecuting side. For example, there hasn’t been a criminal defense lawyer on the Supreme Court in 25 years. Judges overall come from a fairly distinct background, and defendant’s rights have suffered because of it.
There are even cases where a lawyer will be a prosecutor in one municipality and judge in another. The fact that judges are waving away concerns about conflict of interest in examples like that shows why it’s a mistake to think judges are unbiased or more likely to protect rights.
What about Trial By Stone?
I’ll take your word for it that this is the case in the US. But it doesn’t have to be the case. Here in the Netherlands judges have followed a specific educational and career track after law school. I believe few of them have any history either as a prosecutor or a lawyer. Probably also important to point out that neither judges nor prosecutors are “political” positions. Judges are appointed for life and for serious cases there are multiple judges that hear the case. Being a prosecutor is just a normal job (as far as I know).
Taking your description at face value that sounds like a terrible situation and it certainly seems like that particular judge was a total ass. And while I’m certainly sympathetic, I think it’s fair to point out that in many cases the exact opposite can happen. Like the case of the Jian Ghomeshi trial here in Canada that was discussed in several other threads.
That was a highly publicized and emotional case in which a well-known celebrity was charged with sexual violence against women, and moreover everyone “knew” he was guilty because his proclivities in this regard and his general abuse of women were the worst-kept secret within the entire local entertainment community. The problem with the case centered on the credibility of the evidence from a strict legal standpoint. In one interesting development, the prosecution asked to present corroborating evidence from a friend of one of the plaintiffs. The defense argued that it was hearsay and the kind of evidence that, were it a jury trial, might mislead the jury. The judge agreed, but ruled that “it might mislead a jury, but it won’t mislead me” and allowed the evidence to be presented. So basically all the available evidence was allowed to be presented, including evidence which would not have been available to a jury, it was duly weighed in accordance with its credibility, and in the end the judge ruled that the overall weight of evidence was insufficient to convict and declared the defendant innocent of all charges.
The decision was praised as being legally correct, yet as soon as it was announced this headline appeared: Jian Ghomeshi trial’s not guilty decision triggers outrage, march to police headquarters.
Tell me, what do you think the verdict would have been if it had been a jury trial and any of the numerous outraged citizens such as these had been on the jury?
I would also ask how well the jury system historically protected the rights of African Americans faced with all-white southern juries, the kind who seemed to convict black defendants more or less automatically just on general principle.
Another observation I would make is that I think it’s unhelpful to have a system that in many cases selects judges by public election, and is the very process that sometimes leads to asinine judges like the one you were describing. Ironically, that system came about from the same distrust of government institutions that seems to create a preference for juries over judges – that is, the argument that says you want a trial by a jury of nitwits because you trust them more than the judges that these very same nitwits elected.
There seems to be a huge confusion here about what a defendant’s rights actually are. What everyone has the right to is a fair trial and a just outcome. No one has the “right” to be found innocent! But that’s what asahi appears to be endorsing – a system where a jury is more likely to reach a not-guilty verdict because they don’t know what they’re doing. That’s not justice, it’s incompetence. Many believe that’s what happened in the OJ trial. Defendants have a right to a fair trial, and the public has a right to be protected against criminals. That’s justice.
To be clear, I’m not arguing here that trial by judge is always preferable, I’m saying that both judge and jury systems have respective advantages and disadvantages for the defendant, which is what I said from the beginning.
I don’t know, I’m pretty good with a sword!
Sure, but are you better than the hardened mercenary that the rich defendant hired as his champion?