4 ms·

And what is the other option? Just led the judge alone decide?

kccqzy 1y ago
Yes I trust judges more than I trust juries. And it usually isn't a single judge. There is a panel of judges or en banc. And juries aren't universal either. Lots of other countries don't have juries but they have a fair and equitable justice system. Look up civil law vs common law.
- bluGill 1y ago
  I want the judge to keep the lawyers in check so they cannot. Judges are trustable because the jury limits their power. If I am a lawyer I know whothe judges are and it is to my advantage to figure out their bias (including judge shopping if there is more than one in the area), looking for embaressing things or blackmail material, what bribes they will accept (often in form of donation to a family charity) and so one. which is to say the reason I trust judges is the jury keeps them in check by ensuring there isn't value in the above corruption.
  - mlinhares 1y ago
    Judge shopping is also a thing, if the judge was the only person in power to make the decision we'd be completely screwed.
  - wslh 1y ago
    Not only that but today you have all kind of analytics for courts, and judges that you can use in your favour.
- lukan 1y ago
  What is the reasoning, judges are above racial bias?
  - kccqzy 1y ago
    They are more likely than juries to be above racial bias. Not 100% but I trust them more due to the training and education needed to become a judge.
    - pests 1y ago
      Why not a jury of 12 judges for the best of both worlds?
      - wqaatwt 1y ago
        It would be very expensive but yes seems like a good option. Of course a problem in some places and systems is that judges are often political appointees which has its own implications
- Matticus_Rex 1y ago
  I trust an individual judge's opinion on almost any topic to be more intelligent than that of an individual jury member. But there's huge selection bias in who becomes a judge, and so we end up with a pool of people who are mostly former prosecutors, which is another pool with a huge selection bias. All of the judges I know personally (though not all I've been around) are well-meaning, fair-minded people, but with maybe one exception they're all true believers in the fairness of the system, and all tend to give tremendous unearned deference to prosecutors. We should absolutely not make them the finders of fact in criminal cases.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Lay judges are also an option and might offer a reasonable balance.
    - Matticus_Rex 1y ago
      We'd need a full overhaul of the legal system from the ground up to get to a place where we could implement the better versions of lay judge participation, and if we got a full overhaul of the legal system that's not what we'd land on. And lay judges aren't really a balance between juries and judges in most implementations.
- vidarh 1y ago
  Norway has a tradition of using panels of judges that uses a mix of professional judges and lay judges drawn from the jury pool. I don't recall the specifics on when this systems used vs. a regular jury. They deliberate with the professional judge, has the majority, but can be overridden if their reasoning is blatantly contrary to the law.
psunavy03 1y ago
This is known as a "bench trial" and is a legal concept.
- nottorp 1y ago
  Bench trial and civil law are actually the most used legal systems worldwide, not jury trial and common law.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    Jury trials are not unique to common law systems, though. Many civil law systems either have lay judges or allow jury trials under certain circumstances. Of course you are not entitled to a jury trial in e.g. France unless you are accused of something very serious.
tzs 1y ago
One possibility would be to use juries to just decide facts, then a panel of judges applies the law to those facts. If there are many factual disputes in a case maybe use multiple juries with each jury only deciding on a subset of the facts, chosen so that no jury sees the entire case. They are less likely to be biased if they don't see the entire case.

Yes I trust judges more than I trust juries. And it usually isn't a single judge. There is a panel of judges or en banc. And juries aren't universal either. Lots of other countries don't have juries but they have a fair and equitable justice system. Look up civil law vs common law.

bluGill 1y ago
I want the judge to keep the lawyers in check so they cannot. Judges are trustable because the jury limits their power. If I am a lawyer I know whothe judges are and it is to my advantage to figure out their bias (including judge shopping if there is more than one in the area), looking for embaressing things or blackmail material, what bribes they will accept (often in form of donation to a family charity) and so one. which is to say the reason I trust judges is the jury keeps them in check by ensuring there isn't value in the above corruption.
- mlinhares 1y ago
  Judge shopping is also a thing, if the judge was the only person in power to make the decision we'd be completely screwed.
- wslh 1y ago
  Not only that but today you have all kind of analytics for courts, and judges that you can use in your favour.
lukan 1y ago
What is the reasoning, judges are above racial bias?
- kccqzy 1y ago
  They are more likely than juries to be above racial bias. Not 100% but I trust them more due to the training and education needed to become a judge.
  - pests 1y ago
    Why not a jury of 12 judges for the best of both worlds?
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      It would be very expensive but yes seems like a good option. Of course a problem in some places and systems is that judges are often political appointees which has its own implications
Matticus_Rex 1y ago
I trust an individual judge's opinion on almost any topic to be more intelligent than that of an individual jury member. But there's huge selection bias in who becomes a judge, and so we end up with a pool of people who are mostly former prosecutors, which is another pool with a huge selection bias. All of the judges I know personally (though not all I've been around) are well-meaning, fair-minded people, but with maybe one exception they're all true believers in the fairness of the system, and all tend to give tremendous unearned deference to prosecutors. We should absolutely not make them the finders of fact in criminal cases.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Lay judges are also an option and might offer a reasonable balance.
  - Matticus_Rex 1y ago
    We'd need a full overhaul of the legal system from the ground up to get to a place where we could implement the better versions of lay judge participation, and if we got a full overhaul of the legal system that's not what we'd land on. And lay judges aren't really a balance between juries and judges in most implementations.
vidarh 1y ago
Norway has a tradition of using panels of judges that uses a mix of professional judges and lay judges drawn from the jury pool. I don't recall the specifics on when this systems used vs. a regular jury. They deliberate with the professional judge, has the majority, but can be overridden if their reasoning is blatantly contrary to the law.

psunavy03 1y ago

This is known as a "bench trial" and is a legal concept.

nottorp 1y ago
Bench trial and civil law are actually the most used legal systems worldwide, not jury trial and common law.
- wqaatwt 1y ago
  Jury trials are not unique to common law systems, though. Many civil law systems either have lay judges or allow jury trials under certain circumstances. Of course you are not entitled to a jury trial in e.g. France unless you are accused of something very serious.

tzs 1y ago

One possibility would be to use juries to just decide facts, then a panel of judges applies the law to those facts. If there are many factual disputes in a case maybe use multiple juries with each jury only deciding on a subset of the facts, chosen so that no jury sees the entire case. They are less likely to be biased if they don't see the entire case.