Hi everyone,
I was wondering what is the view of Americans on the concept of jury trials, since you guys use those. In my country, there is no jury, it’s only the judge/a senate of judges, who make the ruling on both the guilt and the punishment.
Do you think your system is more or less susceptible to bias and faulty rulings compared to non-jury systems? Especially when it comes to high-profile cases like Luigi Mangione, in which you almost can’t find a jury which was not to a certain extent affected by the media prior to the trial.
Do you think that it’s a good concept (even if you would reform it to an extent)?
Comments
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.
If you see any comments that violate the rules, please report it and move on!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Why do you believe judges aren’t susceptible to biases? Isn’t that just human nature?
A great thing. The last thing I want is the decision solely being made by one person who has their own biases, and worse, a carreer that is beholden to the whims of the government.
The fact that a jury can decide not to convict when they believe law is unjust or a prosecution overzealous is a good thing.
Would I rather 12 other citizens have to vote unanimously to convict me for a crime or one judge who works for the government that is also accusing me of the crime?
How is this even a question?
I’m in awe of my colleagues who litigate in front of juries.
I’m for it.
If the prosecution can’t convince 12 regular people that the defendant is guilty, you need to set them free.
You have the option to have a bench trial, which means the judge makes the ruling instead of a jury.
>you almost can’t find a jury which was not to a certain extent affected by the media prior to the trial.
And a panel of judges will also have bias.
A jury system is far better than one based entirely on judges.
Everyone has bias. The more people involved in making the decision, the less biased it will be, so trials with juries are more fair.
Judges can be appointed or elected in our country. This immediately brings in the perception of bias.
When the Supreme Court makes a ruling in favor of one side over the other, there are accusations of bias and sometimes corruption.
You can’t do that with a jury of citizens who need to come to a unanimous consensus.
There’s the insanely rare “the criminals paid off the jury” that you see on TV, but that’s TV.
FYI you can choose to have a trial where it’s just the judge deciding your fate. Rather than a jury.
Personally I think if you (the state) can’t convince 12 common people that someone is guilty, then that person should be able to be free.
I think what Trump is doing at the moment is all the proof you need that it’s a bad idea to rely on one person’s decision for a verdict. If that one judge us beholden to Trump then a court case is Is irrelevant.
Rather have a jury of 12 any day.
I have met a lot of trial lawyers both civil and criminal. The general consensus is that the system has flaws but they prefer it. They will do bench trials for strategic purposes but they really do believe juries generally “get it right” or at least as close to “right” as you can in a very grey world.
In our system, the judge is responsible for resolving legal questions (what the law is) while the jury is responsible for answering factual questions (what actually happened, who is telling the truth, did people behave reasonably, etc).
Contrary to the trope of, “The only people who end up as jurors are those too dumb to get out of it,” I was pleasantly surprised by my experience doing it a few years back. I thought we had a great juror panel, good cross-section of people, and the majority of the candidates wanted to be part of it.
> Especially when it comes to high-profile cases like Luigi Mangione, in which you almost can’t find a jury which was not to a certain extent affected by the media prior to the trial.
In jury selection, it’s not like “Have you ever heard of this person/case?” It’s more “Will your (whatever experience) prevent you from making a fair and objective decision?” At least for my experience on a murder trial the excused candidates were mainly either on prescription drugs which could affect their clarity of thought, or they’d had traumatic past experience with violent crime, or they were in some really essential job without coverage.
With regards to “faulty rulings” I really feel like it’s predominantly on the lawyers and their ability to convey their case. When it comes to finding a verdict, it’s kind of simple when you boil it down. Jury instructions are like “If you find A, B, and C to be true beyond a reasonable double, you must find the defendant guilty. Otherwise, you must find them not guilty.”
Granted I only had my single solitary experience with this, but I felt much more confident in the jury trial system having sat through it for a couple weeks.
I am literally sitting in jury duty right now waiting for the judge and about half the people here didn’t even read or follow the instructions on the summons. More and more of our trials are becoming about dueling scientific experts and I’m just not sure these people are smart enough to understand those. But I do think it’s a decent system compared to bench trials.
Only 2 – 3% of cases go to trial from a Google search
I don’t want to go to jail because a cranky judge who works for the government that’s accusing me of a crime had a bad day. It’s way less likely that 12 regular people all simultaneously had a bad day.
People from countries with European-style civil law (NOT what Americans call civil law) tend to think that the simple inputs-and-outputs model is more fair and are skeptical of the malleability of common law, but I prefer it. I like that a jury can be like “got arrested for WHAT? nah, that ain’t right” and not convict.
Consider that one of the key purposes of the criminal justice system is to create a credible system of accountability and punishment for criminal acts and in the process of doing so, channeling the forces of violence and retribution and imposing higher standards for their use. What the jury system does is to give representative members of the community a role both as observers and participants in the judicial process, which helps to get community buy-in for the results of that process.
This was probably a stronger connection back when communities were much smaller and most people were known to each other.
100% love jury trials. i think they are very important for society and democracy
judges are not magical human beings.
power to the peoole
Jury nullification is an important protection against a tyrannical government.
As someone who’s been a juror on a criminal case I would absolutely take the jury. The whole deliberation process encourages thought and discussion. Having multiple perspectives also helps minimize bias.
Judges are not magical creatures of wisdom who are always bias-free and get everything right every time. Trial by a panel of judges would be better than a single judge but I would still go with a jury every time.
> it’s only the judge/a senate of judges, who make the ruling on both the guilt and the punishment.
And are paid by the government who’s created the charges against you and will imprison you. Seems like a closed loop that could very easily be manipulated to guarantee conviction rates.
I absolutely think it’s a good concept in theory but you’re right in that it has issues. We obviously see that historically in quite a few cases especially in lynchings of black Americans where juries were frequently comprised of only white men.
I’d like to add however at least with jury bias that we do now have the Daubert ruling when it comes to scientific and forensic evidence presented in court. Basically this dictates that the judge has the authority to dictate whether certain “expert witnesses” are allowed to argue in court. The idea is that judges are more educated than the general public and won’t let scientifically dubious “evidence” be used to argue in court in front a jury that likely will take whatever an “expert” says at face value.
Juries do have their problems, and especially for high profile cases it’s tough. But a single Judge I think is a more flawed system. The are likely to form relationships to the prosecutor and potentially the police, they are going to see many many guilty people come through and are likely to have some bias from that naturally. And they work for the government. I think there’s value in a jury trial. Both in having to convince 12 people, but you also have to explain the law to people who aren’t legally trained, so the law cannot become so convoluted or unfair that a jury would just not be able to see what the person had done wrong.
But I do think it’s a system that should be adjusted to be more fair. Both in checking to make sure everyone is included as that has been a problem with some areas being taken for juries more than others. And jurors are generally paid very little for their time, so that essentially incentivizes them to be done with it quickly rather than take it seriously.
After my wife served on a jury, she said if she ever was going to trial, she’d ask for a bench trial. The jury was basically 10-2 guilty because they just wanted it to be done with. There was a lot of pressure on the 2 hold outs, who viewed the same trial as the other 10, but it basically boiled down to the cop didn’t actually see the person committing the crime, so they couldn’t convict.
Better to have and not need than need and not have.
If you have a pool of honest, unbiased jurors with reasonable intelligence, I believe the jury system is superior and especially when a unanimous verdict is required (criminal cases).
Unfortunately, our society is going in the wrong direction. A century ago Latin was a routine topic in high school and civic responsibility was taken seriously. Nowadays when people post questions on the jury system they’re more along the lines of, “How can I get out of it?”
I think that jury trials are a good thing for most cases, but we also have the option of requesting a bench trial for those where a jury trial would not be conducive towards a fair trial. I think that ours is a good system in this respect.
Every person has some form of bias, even if the bias is unconscious. It’s not guaranteed that a judge would be less biased than any other person.
I think your country’s method would be terrifying. The more people required to agree on a verdict, the better imo.
In addition to the points others have made, jury duty is positive for civic life. For a citizen to occasionally have the duty to be involved with the judiciary process (and not as a litigant) is a good thing. We get to see it in action, and if chosen to serve, participate directly. This is good.
It’s more fair in general. There are lots of laws that many people do not agree with. Regardless of what the law states if a jury decides not to be guilty then you’re not guilty. It’s a rare but important distinction that you are not found guilty by the government itself.
A perfect example are women in Texas who could be prosecuted for having an abortion. If I were in Texas there’s very little chance I would vote guilty.
Luigi is a good example in that there are lots of terrible people who cause significant harm without repercussions. If he was found not guilty would set a very disturbing precedent for those people that they’re no longer protected by their wealth or connections. This definitely won’t happen, but it’s possible.
Jury trials are foundational to our democracy, and I don’t think that you’ll find any American who would oppose it.
That being said, most jurisdictions allow you to opt for a “bench trial” instead for most non serious offenses, which is where you opt to have the judge decide instead of a jury.
Your innocence being judged by a jury of your peers is the ONLY way to serve justice. Judges are human beings with biases, who have made the courtroom their career. They should not be the arbiter of guilt and liability. Countries that don’t hold jury trials are corrupt.
Jury nullification is almost always a good thing.
As a litigation paralegal, I honestly think jury trials are fraught with flaws.
Asking random members of the public to determine an outcome in an arena where everyone is trying to use anything they can to convince them ans in which they must come to a consensus is a ridiculous idea, but we keep doing it.
I could go on for days, but here’s an example: All it takes is one particularly charismatic person on a jury to sway it in whatever direction they choose.