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?
The point of a jury trial is that you are being judged by 12 random people, who in theory are less likely to be biased, corrupt, or otherwise have skin in the game. This (again in theory) should result in a more ‘fair’ trial.
The argument is that a judge appointed by the State could be more prone to supporting or opposing a specific agenda/people/group that the State wants, e.g. punishing the State’s opponents and protecting their supporters.
>What does a Judge do in Jury trials?
A judge is there to decide matters of law, and a jury decides matters of fact.
So in a jury trial, a Judge will say to the jury (in effect): “The defendant is charged with first degree murder. The legal requirements for first degree murder are A, B, C and D. If you believe the prosecution has proven all of A, B, C and D against the defendant, then you should vote Guilty. If you do not believe all of A, B, C and D, then you should vote Not Guilty”
The jury then makes that decision: has A, B, C and D been proven or not?
>Why do some countries not have jury trials and all trials are just with a judge or multiple judges?
Different countries have different rules, is basically what it boils down to.
You find a lot of Appeal Courts or High Courts will often have judges or panels of judges, with no jury. This is because most legal appeals are based on matters of law (“the jury wasn’t told XYZ but they should have been, the judge ruled evidence ABC inadmissable but that was wrong”) rather than matters of fact.
Latest Answers