3 ms·

Statistically speaking, isn't it still better to have a jury of multiple people requiring unanimous consent, as opposed to a single equally fallible judge?

rg111 3y ago
You can appeal many times. And there are multiple judges listening to a case. And we also need to get rid of elected judges. The developed world do just fine wuthout a jury system.
- redeeman 3y ago
  except in the very rare cases where they cave to political pressure
- FpUser 3y ago
  Jury can declare person innocent if they believe that the law is unjust. Can judge do the same?
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Yes. Of course they can.
    - danaris 3y ago
      Do you have a source on that? I'm unfamiliar with the laws and jurisprudence on bench trials in the US, but the impression I have is that judges are either required to simply follow the law, or are at least bound by custom to do so.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        Most of the time a judge doesn't need to provide justification of any kind when issuing a verdict. The assumption (and it's a big one) is that they follow the law when issuing verdicts - like you said it's more like a custom. I suppose the difference is that a judge cannot stand up and say "I found you have broken the law but I disagree with the law so I won't find you guilty" while a jury can - but judges have an almost absolute discretion at deciding what the verdict is, if they internally disagree with a law they can just find you not guilty if they so wish.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Even if they could, and they probably can, they are inherently cogs in the machine of the law and shaped by it. A jury of twelve layman will always be more fair and I’m glad America has a system that understands this fact. People arguing against juries must be so ignorant to why they’re even a thing to even begin debating why they are a bad thing.
Broken_Hippo 3y ago
You certainly don't have to choose between the two. You can have multiple judges decide over a case, which will work even better if you don't allow fake science into the courts.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  That’s still choosing allowing judges, a part of the government, total control of your fate. Dystopian stuff
ffgjgf1 3y ago
For serious crimes you generally have a panel of judges.
Yeul 3y ago
In my country you can usually appeal a decision and a new judge takes that case. Mind you a judge is probably smarter and less "fallible" than the average guy/gal on the street. We don't drag someone off the street at random for most jobs now do we?
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  A judge is (hopefully) trained and experienced with questioning both sides of the argument and weighing the arguments. While jurors just have their natural intuition. Here in Germany we have a system were "volunteer" judges are elected from the general public. On lower levels there then are two volunteer and one regular judge*, where the regular judge is leading the trial, but volunteers got same right to ask question and votes are equal, thus the two volunteers could overrule the regular judge, (both for deciding whether guilty or not and the punishment) while in most cases they probably follow the suggestion of the regular judge. If the verdict is challenged upper courts only have regular judges. Goal is to have, both the legal expertise, but also the "common sense" in the ruling. * in some cases the numbers may be different, there are sometimes 3 regular and two volunteer or something in between
  - gambiting 3y ago
    Same(or very similar) in the UK - you have lower level "magistrates court" where the judges are volunteers who are given legal training and are given access to actual paid career judges if they need clarification on something. I'm not sure if the magistrates can overrule regular judges in any way, but yeah, you can always appeal to a higher court if needed.
- dpflug 3y ago
  I've worked with judges. I could give you a mapping of charges to local judges where I'd prefer the judgement of 12 random people off the street. This isn't a normal job. We don't hire 6 to 23 people for a single job, and jurors aren't random. Yes, jury summons are sent randomly, but they'll have hundreds summoned and then jury selection starts. It's not unlike a job interview. If someone is on the jury who's going to be biased or unreasonable, that's a failure of their legal counsel.
dwighttk 3y ago
Depends on the facts of the case…

rg111 3y ago

You can appeal many times. And there are multiple judges listening to a case. And we also need to get rid of elected judges. The developed world do just fine wuthout a jury system.

redeeman 3y ago
except in the very rare cases where they cave to political pressure
FpUser 3y ago
Jury can declare person innocent if they believe that the law is unjust. Can judge do the same?
- gambiting 3y ago
  Yes. Of course they can.
  - danaris 3y ago
    Do you have a source on that? I'm unfamiliar with the laws and jurisprudence on bench trials in the US, but the impression I have is that judges are either required to simply follow the law, or are at least bound by custom to do so.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      Most of the time a judge doesn't need to provide justification of any kind when issuing a verdict. The assumption (and it's a big one) is that they follow the law when issuing verdicts - like you said it's more like a custom. I suppose the difference is that a judge cannot stand up and say "I found you have broken the law but I disagree with the law so I won't find you guilty" while a jury can - but judges have an almost absolute discretion at deciding what the verdict is, if they internally disagree with a law they can just find you not guilty if they so wish.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Even if they could, and they probably can, they are inherently cogs in the machine of the law and shaped by it. A jury of twelve layman will always be more fair and I’m glad America has a system that understands this fact. People arguing against juries must be so ignorant to why they’re even a thing to even begin debating why they are a bad thing.

Broken_Hippo 3y ago

You certainly don't have to choose between the two. You can have multiple judges decide over a case, which will work even better if you don't allow fake science into the courts.

edgyquant 3y ago
That’s still choosing allowing judges, a part of the government, total control of your fate. Dystopian stuff

ffgjgf1 3y ago

For serious crimes you generally have a panel of judges.

Yeul 3y ago

In my country you can usually appeal a decision and a new judge takes that case. Mind you a judge is probably smarter and less "fallible" than the average guy/gal on the street. We don't drag someone off the street at random for most jobs now do we?

johannes1234321 3y ago
A judge is (hopefully) trained and experienced with questioning both sides of the argument and weighing the arguments. While jurors just have their natural intuition. Here in Germany we have a system were "volunteer" judges are elected from the general public. On lower levels there then are two volunteer and one regular judge*, where the regular judge is leading the trial, but volunteers got same right to ask question and votes are equal, thus the two volunteers could overrule the regular judge, (both for deciding whether guilty or not and the punishment) while in most cases they probably follow the suggestion of the regular judge. If the verdict is challenged upper courts only have regular judges. Goal is to have, both the legal expertise, but also the "common sense" in the ruling. * in some cases the numbers may be different, there are sometimes 3 regular and two volunteer or something in between
- gambiting 3y ago
  Same(or very similar) in the UK - you have lower level "magistrates court" where the judges are volunteers who are given legal training and are given access to actual paid career judges if they need clarification on something. I'm not sure if the magistrates can overrule regular judges in any way, but yeah, you can always appeal to a higher court if needed.
dpflug 3y ago
I've worked with judges. I could give you a mapping of charges to local judges where I'd prefer the judgement of 12 random people off the street. This isn't a normal job. We don't hire 6 to 23 people for a single job, and jurors aren't random. Yes, jury summons are sent randomly, but they'll have hundreds summoned and then jury selection starts. It's not unlike a job interview. If someone is on the jury who's going to be biased or unreasonable, that's a failure of their legal counsel.

dwighttk 3y ago

Depends on the facts of the case…