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
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.
Latest Answers