I’ve always been confused by this.
​
Why would you want a bunch of randoms to decide your fate, and not the actual judge with a law degree and years of experience?
Why do those people have more power than the judge? They can decide anything they want and the judge is basically just the guy who signs and does the paperwork.
In: 2634
>They can decide anything they want and the judge is basically just the guy who signs and does the paperwork.
LOL, that is such a far cry from what a judge does who needs to intimately understand the law and give the directions to jury on to what they CAN and CAN’T consider and what can and can’t be included in testimony. The judge is integral on how cases proceed. The jury often makes one decision on a case with simple charges (innocent or guilty) while a judge may have dozens or hundreds of decisions until then. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US courts work.
The jury actually has a very old origin. Back in the Middle Ages in Europe, the idea of using science and reason to investigate a crime didn’t exist. Instead, there were a variety of ways people would ask God (or the gods) to judge cases. Sometimes this was trial by combat (God would make sure the innocent person won), or trial by fire (God would make a guilty man’s burn wounds fester), and so on.
Another method was to make some people swear that the accused was innocent – the idea was that God wouldn’t let you swear a formulaic oath without stuttering or whatever unless you spoke the truth. This was called “compurgation”
For unclear reasons, it was common to have eleven or twelve people of the same status as the accused make this oath.
Modern juries are supposed to decide guilt or innocence based on evidence and reason, but the idea of twelve people of the same social status as the accused swearing an oath that the person is guilty or innocent is derived directly from this ancient system of justice.
In addition to what’s been said, and this is important, a jury judges not only the accused but the law itself. It is the final check. If the government were to pass an unjust law the jurors are under no obligation to find a violator guilty
My country of origin is like you describe.
We had the first huge anti gang trial. Decided by the chief justice. A single person.
Who told the procecution he’s bored listening to the undercover evidence of murder, extortion etc.
He released a dude from that trial cause when the banker for the gang stated that dude used to collect extortion money and hand it over to him (the banker), the judge claimed that the guy could’ve gotten the money from anywhere.
Almost without exception, the people the judge let go in this trial have been killed by other gangs or police (after commiting more gang murders), sometimes DAYS after the judge released them.
One person cannot be the decider. One person is bribable, able to be intimidated, etc etc.
You always have the right to have a judge decide your fate. If you’re going to trial though, it’s very likely because there is overwhelming evidence against you and the judge is very likely to side with that evidence. Trial by jury introduces an element of randomness that gives you a better chance of a positive (from your perspective) outcome.
A few answers OP:
1) the main premise behind a jury is that they can’t be corrupted, and generally would be free of bias, compared to say a judge whose seen 20 other drug addicts who’ve stolen cars come through and decides he or she is tired of giving them second chances and decides to start throwing them in prison.
2) some people do argue that there should be “professional jurors” but again that would cause corruption problems etc.
3) a Jude still usually does decide the fate of someone whose CONVICTED of a crime. Juries usually have no say in what someone’s fate is, only wether they are guilty or not, and then the judge decides what sentence is best
4) a judge has laws that require them in some cases to sentence a certain ways (mandatory minimums) so this would be problematic if it suddenly became “oh they are suspected of a crime so now I’m legally obligated to convict them” compared to my next and final point:
5) jurors are under no legal obligation to find someone guilty/not guilty and thanks to the double jeopardy clause we have what’s called jury nullification. Which means even if the evidence is clear cut 100% a suspect committed the crime? The jury can decide they don’t think what that person did was a crime and that that person guilty of any crime, and vote not guilty, which then protects that person from ever being tried criminally again for that crime.
The reverse also works… if the jury believes you DID commit a crime but there’s no reverse to the double jeopardy.. so that’s when you get appeals and retrials and all that
Keep in mind this isn’t the “US” system. It’s based on English Common Law going back many centuries and variations on this system are found all over the world. It’s a decision “too important” to be left to a single man, who might be corrupt. Judges are there to decide matters of law (procedural issues), the jury decides matters of fact (basically which witnesses and lawyers should be believed).
The reason the jury exists is probably historical: prior to the Magna Carta, the only real source of appeal was the local sovereign — you’d be escorted to the sovereign’s court and you’d present your case, and the sovereign would decide the matter.
That’s where we get the word ‘court’ in the sense of a legal assembly — from the French *cour* (‘an enclosed yard’), which is where the sovereign and his entourage adjudicated.
As you can probably guess, that wasn’t always the most efficient (or fair) manner of dispensing justice. A sovereign that was having a bad day might just make an arbitrary judgement to be done with it; the king’s advisors might influence the sovereign’s decision, and — of course — the accused were usually common folk, and the sovereign might simply *not care* enough to be fair and just.
To keep the sovereign’s power in check, the idea of a ‘jury’ slowly formed. The sovereign had to at least make a *pretense* of being fair before a jury, because ruling unfairly was likely to spark rebellion.
Originally, jurors were selected from neighborhood witnesses, who passed judgement based on what they themselves knew. Juries initially didn’t decide matters of fact — they were simply a cross-section of the defendant’s neighborhood, chosen at random based on their knowledge of certain matters.
If a person was accused of, for example, smithing a shoddy piece of farm equipment, one of the jurors would likely be a local blacksmith, so that the court could rely on his knowledge as a smith to ensure the testimony was accurate.
It wasn’t until fairly late, historically speaking, that a jury became a body of impartial arbiters that decided on matters of fact, rather than relying on their own knowledge.
The judge isn’t powerless. The judge is the one who determines matters of law (what evidence can be allowed in, what arguments can be made, etc). The jury determines matters of fact (is a witness reliable, has the prosecution proven all of the elements required for the crime, etc).
The idea of juries is that historically judges weren’t independent from the king (originally it was a job for the king himself), so it was better to have twelve people who are more like you and not beholden to anyone for their appointment to make the final decision about guilt or innocence.
The jury system also creates a potential for jury nullification. If the jury finds the law itself to be unjust, they can refuse to convict even if the evidence for the crime is overwhelming. This provides another check on the power of the state.
Because the main point is impartiality.
The core issue was not how legal cases were decided. The order of core issues was:
1 – People had been deprived of life and liberty. They could just throw you in some palace tower prison because they felt like it.
2 – So the US system said, NO. We won’t do that. You can only go to prison if you actually break a law.
3 – So how do they prove you broke a law? Well, the government can’t just SAY you broke one.
4 – No. The government has to show up in a public trial and show proof that you did something bad. And you get to show up and argue back on your behalf.
5 – Ok, well if the gov says “he did it” and you say “no I didn’t” who gets to decide who is right? NOT the government. We’re not going to let the Government decide if the Government won the argument.
6 – THE PEOPLE will decide. People accused of a crime have the right to have an impartial group of their peers listen to both sides of the argument, and decide if the government proved you did bad or not.
—————————————————–
TL;DR: The government has to prove you deserve to go to jail. The government can’t get to decide for itself whether the government won a case. That’s not fair. The judge works for the government. A jury doesn’t work for either side. They just “tell it to the crowd and let them decide who sounds right”
Latest Answers