4 ms·
Juries seem like a bad idea for criminal conviction in general.
by k__ 7y ago
Juries seem like a bad idea for criminal conviction in general.
- programmertote 7y agoI grew up in a country where there's no jury system in place. There, the judge(s) are all that matter in deciding the outcome of the case and as you can imagine, a lot of corruption happens (it is easier to bribe 1-3 judges than to a dozen jury for example). I am curious (a serious question) what better system you have in mind to replace juries.
- vidarh 7y agoNorway uses a mixed system (it used to have juries for some cases; the very last jury decision after the law was changed was logically unsound - two questions, one of the four combinations was impossible; the juries returned that one) of panels of judges (from 1 to 7) depending on the type of case. For the most serious criminal cases the panel will have 2 professional legally trained judges and 5 "lay judges" - basically jurors of a sort, but unlike in a jury trial all of the judges (professionals and lay judges) deliberate together and vote together. In a 7 judge panel, at least 1 of the professional judges and at least 4 of the lay judges must vote guilty for a conviction. This feels to me like it gets most of the benefit of both a jury and of professional judges. It avoids a lot of the issue of whether or not the lay judges understand the jury instructions and the legal aspects they're asked to judge on, but also ensures the prosecutor does need to convince both the lay judges and the professional judges for a conviction.
- pwned1 7y agoWe also have the tradition of jury nullification in the US where jurors are free to acquit if they feel as though the law itself is unjust. Professional jurors would no doubt shy away from that because their employment depends on the government. In addition, in the US, jurors don't make decisions on the law, just the facts.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 7y agoIn Norway jurors didn't make decisions on the law either, which is why the distinction between jurors and lay judges exists. It's kinda moot now as there aren't juries anymore, but both systems existed in parallel (for different types of cases and severity) It's not really that they are "free to acquit" either as much as that there is no mechanism for preventing it. The issue is controversial enough that the several circuits have made it clear courts can present jury instructions designed to minimize it and/or prevent the jury from being made aware of the ability. And this ability has also been extensively abused, e.g. for racist purposes. While it has also been used to attack unjust laws, I'm not convinced it is worth the risks.
- Amezarak 7y agoThe possibility of contradictory decisions is a feature of juries, not a bug. Juries are able to make decisions metalegally, not just legally. They are one of the most important checks on the power of the legal system. In the US, if you do not want a jury trial, you are free (and encouraged) to do so and settle for a bench trial, where everything is decided by a judge. I think that gives you the best of both worlds as a defendant.
- k__ 7y agoI don't know, but we don't have juries in Germany and corruption isn't a problem either.
- jaywalk 7y agoHow do you know that? Would a local reporter take up the story, knowing they could end up in front of that same corrupt judge? I'm not saying you're wrong, but here in the US we can be pretty certain that 12 random people are not corrupt. You just have to trust that judges aren't corrupt.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoI don't know how you can know that. In the US, some lawyers definitely work hard to remain on the good side of judges. I have dabbled in some areas of law that are 'bubbles' with specialized lawyers and no juries (family law, bankruptcy, landlord-tenant). It doesn't take much to disrupt them with conventional good lawyering because most people in those practices areas, judges included, are in a rut. Criminal law has some similar problems mostly at the low level. But it is usually the prosecutors and the defense attorneys colluding to quickly pass cases through the system. The last thing most judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys want is a jury trial because then they would have to do their job.
- k__ 7y agoI see. From the outside I had the impression successful defense attorneys would try to convince the jury by confusing them, which seems quite easy because the jury usually isn't educated in law.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoIn weak cases, lawyers from either side will try to confuse some of the issues. But the rules of evidence, criminal trial procedure rules, and the presiding judge can make this difficult. Also, even though good research about jury deliberation is limited because they are conducted in secret, I recall (from memory) that research shows juries are pretty good at detecting when someone is trying to deceive them. Further, in trials, the opposing party gets a say in the matter too. If one side says something deceptive or deliberately confusing, competent lawyers for the other side will point this out and attempt to correct the record, possibly turning the jury and the judge against the deceptive lawyer.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoStrange how people in the same world live in such different realities. I am lawyer and I think trial by jury is one of the most important features of democracy and freedom ever invented.
- k__ 7y agoI think it's problematic to let some random people who don't know anything about law decide such important things.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoI can see how one could have that view. But in practice the role of US juries is limited to determining facts. The judge and appellate courts determine how the facts apply to the law. Also, judges presiding over jury trials can set aside jury conclusions for a variety of reasons. And higher appellate courts can do so as well.