4 ms·

The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make

The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In many cases, the jury comprises 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. These aren't exactly my views, but they are common objections raised against juries.

ramblenode 10y ago
> only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. This can also be turned around to the benefit of the prosecutor. Prosecutors may pursue legally bogus charges if they are dealing with an unsympathetic defendant. Either way, juries are more susceptible to emotional appeals than legal experts--a bad thing when the law is just, but a good thing when the law is wrong.
- twblalock 10y ago
  I think you'll find that juries will convict even when the law is unjust. Jury nullification is probably not very widespread, despite beliefs to the contrary.
bdhess 10y ago
> The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In the jury system, juries are charged with answering questions as to the facts, and judges are charged with answering questions as to the law. It makes full use of the judge's expertise in the law as well as a small sample of society's expertise in human nature and the human experience. > Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Or put another way, someone who is technically guilty, but under circumstances where conviction of the technical violation would be unconscionable. > Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. Without getting into the merits of the obviously subjective argument here, it's not clear that the conclusion follows even if we grant the assumption. The superior justice system of a non-jury country might be perfected yet further by introducing juries.
- makomk 10y ago
  The textbook explanation of juries is that they answer questions of fact and the judge answers questions of law, but that's fairly obviously not what they're doing in practice. Juries are required to hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, which means that they need to understand all the gnarly and difficult parts of the law and how it applies to the facts at hand. You can find an, errm, interesting explanation here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299
curried_haskell 10y ago
I would argue that the first statement is simply wrong. Jurors do not answer legal questions at all. They answer questions of fact.
- twblalock 10y ago
  There are cases where the jury has to choose one of several charges if they find the defendant guilty, e.g. second- or first-degree murder. In those cases, the jury instructions are pretty specific about the differences between the charges, but that does not eliminate confusion entirely.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
If the laws are such that the average jury simply cannot understand them, even with briefing from the judge or someone competent to do so, perhaps the solution is to make laws such that the normal person can understand and follow the laws - and thus, be qualified for jury duty. Naturally, some laws will need explained simply because folks never come in need of that law. Some accounting laws, for example, would need explained to non-accountants. Explaining the difference between the different levels of murder could need explained because most of us aren't murdering folks. But it seems that should be well within the confines of the system. >Only a guilty person would desire a jury This would simply depend on the honesty of the system. If you are wrongly accused and offered a plea deal, you might wind up going to trial if you have a non-guilty plea. Theoretically there wouldn't be enough evidence to prosecute you, but those cases make it through nonetheless. Plus there are charges such as "visiting a common nuisance" that are difficult for folks to disprove. visiting a common nuisance is generally visiting a drug dealer or other such location, regardless of your knowledge of what was going on

ramblenode 10y ago

> only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. This can also be turned around to the benefit of the prosecutor. Prosecutors may pursue legally bogus charges if they are dealing with an unsympathetic defendant. Either way, juries are more susceptible to emotional appeals than legal experts--a bad thing when the law is just, but a good thing when the law is wrong.

twblalock 10y ago
I think you'll find that juries will convict even when the law is unjust. Jury nullification is probably not very widespread, despite beliefs to the contrary.

bdhess 10y ago

> The main objection to juries is that judges spend decades developing expertise in the law, but we reduce them to the role of referee and let 12 non-experts make very important and difficult legal decisions. In the jury system, juries are charged with answering questions as to the facts, and judges are charged with answering questions as to the law. It makes full use of the judge's expertise in the law as well as a small sample of society's expertise in human nature and the human experience. > Another common objection, often brought up in countries without juries, is that only a guilty person would desire a jury, because unlike a judge, it could be misled by appeals to emotion and faulty legal arguments. Or put another way, someone who is technically guilty, but under circumstances where conviction of the technical violation would be unconscionable. > Juries also seem to be unnecessary, because there are plenty of countries that don't use juries and have more just and equitable legal systems than countries that do. Without getting into the merits of the obviously subjective argument here, it's not clear that the conclusion follows even if we grant the assumption. The superior justice system of a non-jury country might be perfected yet further by introducing juries.

makomk 10y ago
The textbook explanation of juries is that they answer questions of fact and the judge answers questions of law, but that's fairly obviously not what they're doing in practice. Juries are required to hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, which means that they need to understand all the gnarly and difficult parts of the law and how it applies to the facts at hand. You can find an, errm, interesting explanation here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=299

curried_haskell 10y ago

I would argue that the first statement is simply wrong. Jurors do not answer legal questions at all. They answer questions of fact.

twblalock 10y ago
There are cases where the jury has to choose one of several charges if they find the defendant guilty, e.g. second- or first-degree murder. In those cases, the jury instructions are pretty specific about the differences between the charges, but that does not eliminate confusion entirely.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

If the laws are such that the average jury simply cannot understand them, even with briefing from the judge or someone competent to do so, perhaps the solution is to make laws such that the normal person can understand and follow the laws - and thus, be qualified for jury duty. Naturally, some laws will need explained simply because folks never come in need of that law. Some accounting laws, for example, would need explained to non-accountants. Explaining the difference between the different levels of murder could need explained because most of us aren't murdering folks. But it seems that should be well within the confines of the system. >Only a guilty person would desire a jury This would simply depend on the honesty of the system. If you are wrongly accused and offered a plea deal, you might wind up going to trial if you have a non-guilty plea. Theoretically there wouldn't be enough evidence to prosecute you, but those cases make it through nonetheless. Plus there are charges such as "visiting a common nuisance" that are difficult for folks to disprove. visiting a common nuisance is generally visiting a drug dealer or other such location, regardless of your knowledge of what was going on