All nations within the Anglosphere (US, UK, CA, AU & NZ) have JD imposed towards citizens. I know that the US & Canada both inherited that from Britain, which explains why they have it. However, should it be entirely only the judge making the conviction (some countries operate on a lay-judge system meaning juries aren’t used, such as Finland or Japan for example) rather than leaving that decision up to jurors?

  • Schwim Dandy@piefed.zipEnglish
    23·
    2 days ago

    That whole “… of your peers” thing. Supposedly, it’s harder to influence and corrupt 12 jurors than it is a single judge.

    I have seen cases where the judge reversed the juror’s decision, although I think that’s really rare.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      2·
      19 hours ago

      and the jurors themselves can be biased as hell too. and the way they are chosen isnt foolproof. they want pushovers for jurors.

    • disregardable@lemmy.zip
      17·
      2 days ago

      Typically that happens when the judge made an error. As in, based on the evidence, the judge should have dismissed the case as a matter of law and not allowed the case to go to jury at all. If the motion the attorney submitted to the judge wasn’t very good, or they were rushing through their papers and didn’t have time to really think things through, the issues with the case may not have been clear to them until listening to all of the evidence.