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
> Why do some countries not have jury trials and all trials are just with a judge or multiple judges?
I am currently reading Lee Kuan Yew’s autobiography, _The Singapore Story._ Lee Kuan Yew was a defense lawyer back when Singapore had jury trials, and he lost faith in juries when he managed to get off defendants who were clearly guilty. He actually mentions the specific case that changed his mind. He was defending some guys against murder charges, and when the jury’s verdict of not guilty came in, both he and the judge knew justice had not been served. The men Lee had defended had gotten away with murder. When Lee subsequently became Prime Minister of Singapore, he reformed the justice system to decide trials by panels of judges instead of juries of randoms.
Not saying whether it is a good or bad system. Just answering your question with a single example.
>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.
Generally, trials for minor offences are by judge alone while serious offences are tried by judge and jury. The cost and burden of running a jury trial isn’t justified for a minor offence such as driving under the influence (DUI), especially since a judge will typically hear several DUI cases in the average week.
In a jury trial, the jugde is responsible for the administering the trial and assisting the jury in matters of law (e.g. what counts as murder). The jury is responsible to assessing the facts of the case and determining if the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
In jury trials, the jury is usually only given binary decisions to make (in order to make it easy and/or possible for all of them to agree). I.e. Guilty or Not Guilty .
The judge still has to make rulings during the case regarding things like, when there is an *objection* from one side’s lawyer, the judge rules on whether that objection is *sustained* or not (this is not something a jury would be qualified to do). The judge also has to rule on, for example, whether one side will or will not be allowed to present X evidence, or have X witness testify, etc.
Also, people like to misstate the jury/judge dichotomy. The fact is, **even in a jury trial, the judge has the option to rule Not Guilty and override a jury’s verdict of guilty.**
Hey I have this one: do you think you win ‘the letter of the law’? if so you want a judge/bench trial or if you are being charged with something that falls under ‘that is super fucked up’ to the point a regular person would probably find you guilty entirely because of the accusation (aka you are a pedophile state coach)
if you think the letter of the law works in your favor you want a judge/bench trial or if you think there is something that is ‘super fucked up’ that will come into evidence. A judge can tell the jury to ‘disregard’ a statement or picture but let’s be practical the second you show the random walmart associate a picture of a dead body and say ‘hey this person is the killer’ that guy who works at walmart is going to ignore anything else
Latest Answers