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?
I would personally rather put my fate in the hands of 12 ostensibly average people than one judge.
To me it is the complete opposite. The judge at least knows the law, whereas the jurors have to make a best guess based on their gut feeling.
If the judge makes the wrong call, you can still appeal the decision.
Coincidentally my country does not have jury trials (and nor do I think they are very common outside of the anglosphere?)
The law says go to prison for a decade for posessing weed.
Then the law should be changed.
With a jury system you can end up in the situation where they will apply the law to the fullest if the jury doesn’t like you, but it gets ignored if they do like you. Examples where this would apply could be racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
A properly functioning justice system should be blind and apply the law equally to everyone, and a jury system makes that less likely. A judge can also have biases, but they are supposedly at the very least a professional and an expert on the law, and are meant to act accordingly.
“Are meant to” and “supposedly” but unless there’s a mechanism to hold them accountable those are just wishful thinking. And at a certain point you run into “who watches the watchman?” I don’t have confidence in a jury to put aside bigotry but I don’t have confidence in a judge to either.
Yeah that’s the opposite side of the jury nullification coin. There’s better examples than weed. In a lot of cases cops plant evidence of crimes and there isn’t much that the law would have to say in court, but the jury might suss it out.
The point is that the law is guided by the people, not the other way round. If you have a selection of random people it should be a snapshot of society. They are presented with all the evidence and everything is explained thoroughly before they make a decision, and it can take weeks. I personally think this is far better than leaving it to some old man with outdated and conservative ideas, which is most judges here in the UK.
My country has juries and I agree with you 100%. I’ve seen how these complete idiots perform their duties and I’m not trusting my fate to that.
That almost surely depends on what you are accused of, the evidence against you and, obviously, whether you did it.
If it’s something where the fallibility of humans can be exploited, or there is obvious government overreach that people would hate, a jury is probably your best bet.
Look at all the recent grand juries in the US refusing to even indict people for things that, on paper, are illegal. Prosecutorial overreach is one reason juries exist as a check on the system. Jury nullification is a check on the system. Yeah you might have done it, and everyone may even agree that you did it, but your peers have decided what you did was justified, or shouldn’t have even been illegal in the first place.
If it’s a very technical issue, and an average person is unlikely to understand small nuances that make the difference, you probably want a bench trial. Have the expert determine your guilt based on the specifics that matter. Don’t rely on 12 average people having to be taught about a technical legal matter, or understanding very specific wording in a law, especially if that wording excludes the exact situation you are in. Legalese is written for specific accuracy, not average readability.