So what’s the reasoning behind Jury Trials vs Trials where the judge decides everything? What does a Judge do in Jury trials? Why do some countries not have jury trials and all trials are just with a judge or multiple judges?
In: 17
>So what’s the reasoning behind Jury Trials vs Trials where the judge decides everything?
In the US at least, we have a jury system so that the judicial branch of government stays accountable to the people. For any criminal offense, you have the right to have your fate decided by a group of other citizens with no connection to your case or the judicial system at all. The idea is that if the judicial system ever tried to abuse someone, the people have a direct method of stopping it.
>What does a Judge do in Jury trials?
They ensure that the law is followed. There is a lot of procedural stuff that happens during a trial, and the judge is there to decide those things when conflicts between the prosecution and defense come up. They evaluate the issue, look at relevant case law, and make decisions to the trial is fair to both sides.
Juries are there to interpret fact, not law. They listen to the evidence and, based on that evidence, decide if a specific law has been broken beyond a reasonable doubt.
This depends enormously on what legal system you’re talking about. Some countries have a long history of trial-by-jury, and may even enshrine it in their constitution, some don’t.
In those systems that do have jury trials, the law will specify what types of crimes, and under what circumstances, a jury trial applies.
In a trial by jury, the judge is there to run the courtroom proceedings and guide the jurors. It’s basically the same thing the judge would do in a trial by judge, except the judge doesn’t make the final decision. The jury is just there to listen and make the final decision; the judge explains to the jury what and how they’re expected to do and helps them with any questions of procedure or legality. Jury members generally aren’t lawyers, they need a neutral party to answer their questions, that’s the judge.
In a jury trial(in the US), the jury decides questions of fact, the judge decides questions of law. In a bench trial, the judge decides both.
The right to a jury trial is an important mitigation to the possibility of a corrupt government. It’s a lot easier to bribe one judge than a whole jury. But jury trials are also a bit of a gamble, as people generally don’t like being forced to sit through a boring trial, and you can get a bunch of idiots on your jury.
No one trusts judges. One way to check the power of judges is to have a jury to decide whether something was a crime or not. Another way is to write the laws so detailed and specific that the codex itself curbes the power of judges.
It depends on the system, in the US you can ask for a bench trial. You might do that if the material is extremely technical or if the nature of the crime is so heinous that you worry no juror pool could be fair, since judges will have ‘seen more’ than the average person. If you ask my wife, she would be bench trial all the way. She doesn’t trust her peers one iota.
In the USA you have a right to a trial that is judged by a jury of your *peer*s. Other countries don’t have that specification, so their juries are often like three professional judges and 4+ average citizens. The thought being that a amateur jury is incapable of wading through legalese and that having professionals can help the process.
False dichotomy. Plenty of countries who do not have juries have “lay judges”, i. e. members of the general public who sit in bench with professional judges and decide as a team.
The far more fundamental division is between adversarial and inquisitorial justice systems. But even there, there are mixed forms
A jury trial is there to ensure that the system doesn’t use the knowledge/authority of the judge just to punish people they don’t like instead of punishing people guilty of a crime. Judges are supposed to be impartial and many do try to do that intrinsically but the jury is there just in case.
But a judge is still there as an expert who can set rules and expectations so that counsel on either side also doesn’t take advantage of a jurors ignorance in law or whatever to push their side when the facts wouldn’t support it or the evidence is inadmissable. Like if the prosecutor says there is a confession to the police but the defendant says they only confessed because they were being beaten up by the police a judge is there to decide whether or not the jury should consider that confession when deliberating.
Obviously a juror can’t unhear something that was said in court but made inadmissable but if the judge explains that what they heard can’t be used against the defendant then that might make a difference if that is the big reason why a juror thinks someone is guilty or not.
But! You can also request what’s called a “bench trial” where you leave the decision up to the judge. You have the right to a jury trial (in certain cases, it’s not entirely universal) but you’re not obligated to take it if you think your chances are pretty good that the judge will see the law is on your side.
Same applies to trials with multiple judges. The idea is that multiple people will either all clearly agree what should be done or they’ll work to figure out what is to be done when there is disagreement. That’s another reason why juries need to be unanimous and if they can’t reach a decision that may default to exonerating the defendant or triggering a new trial or at least making the decision easier to appeal.
I see all the answers talking about what and why jury trials and what the judge does in a jury trial, but not answering the first question of why jury vs judge. In most cases, a jury trial would be preferred. This is especially true in a case where the defense can appeal to the emotions of a jury. If however emotions don’t come in at all and it’s down to a question of interpretation of the law, a trial by judge might be a better option.
In a trial by jury, the judge decides on matters of law, while the jury decides on matters of fact. That is, the process is shaped more or less like this:
1. Prosecution: the defendant committed murder in the first degree
2. Prosecution and defense: Back and forth with evidence and witnesses and stuff
3. Judge says to the jury: For first degree murder the defendant must have actually killed the victim, they must have intended to kill the victim, and it must have been premeditated. If it’s intentional but unpremeditated it’s just second degree murder.
4. Jury: Well, we’re convinced that the defendant did kill the victim, and intended to, but it wasn’t planned, just spur of the moment. So I guess it’s second degree murder.
Step 3 is part of the judge deliberating on matters of law: This is what the law says counts as murder, and these are the details that matter for how serious it is. Step 4 is the jury deliberating on matters of fact. Did the defendant actually kill the victim? Did they mean to? Even if if the judge personally thinks the defendant did murder the victim, it doesn’t matter, that part is the jury’s decision.
Then there’s the procedural stuff. Much like a boxing match where you have a jury scoring the match outside the ring and referee inside the ring who’s responsible for keeping the fight clean, the judge plays the role of referee and is responsible for keeping both parties playing nice.
In a bench trial (“judge trial”), there is no jury, and the judge decides on both facts and law.
Juries are fairly rare things these days.
They were developed in 12th century English common law, and were originally investigators and act as witnesses (this was centuries before police forces or modern ideas about public law enforcement). At the time courts moved around, so were only in town for a short period any given year, and would hear all the cases at once. The jury, made up of local rich and influential people, was there to explain (under oath) what happened – stating the facts they were expected to know, being local – so the judge, from outside, could apply those facts to the law and give a ruling.
It was a way of balancing the power of the King (via the royal justices who answered to him) with the local establishment (who got to be on the juries).
The modern jury evolved from this over the centuries, emphasising the split between the jury who answer questions of fact (what happened) and the judge who answers questions of law (what does this mean). They work together to come to a verdict.
The US uses juries a lot (more than anywhere else) because when the US Constitution was being written juries were all the rage (particularly as a way to protect the upper-middle classes from the ruling classes). There is a whole load of awkward 18th century ideology wrapped up in juries (such as the idea that the best way to determine the truth of something is to ask a rich, white man his opinion), and so the US Constitution requires juries for criminal *and civil* trials, and even *grand juries*, which are now only used by the US and Liberia (modelled on the US).
Most other countries that used juries (mostly copied from the English common law system) have dropped them for most cases – even in England less than 5% of criminal cases go before a jury, and civil juries are only used in exceptional cases.
The idea behind a jury is that the average person is the best person to determine what is and isn’t true, particularly when it comes to testimony, and that a jury offers a level of protection against unjust laws. The former is demonstrably untrue (by the number of cases were juries reach crazy conclusions), the latter probably is (although also opens the door to lots of other problems – the US in particular had a big problem with racism in juries, and arguably still does).
The idea behind a bench trial is that judges are harder to sway and manipulate emotionally (lawyers going before a jury will have all sorts of research on how to have their clients and witnesses dress, speak, behave etc. to make the right impression on the jury), and also don’t have to waste the court’s time by explaining basic legal principles to the jury. Judge-only trials can get straight to the heart of the dispute, often briefing all the other issues on paper.
Trials (or appeals) with multiple judges are a sort of balance between this; reducing the problems of having a single point of failure (in the single judge), but still having experts or professionals making the decision.
Latest Answers