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?

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    37·
    18 hours ago

    Jury duty exists because of the jury trial.

    The use of the jury trial exists as a counter to the state potentially obtaining control of the courts and using it to impose criminal legal penalties on those it dislikes. You’ll notice that Donald Trump has had investigations against and can have charges issued against a lot of people that he doesn’t like. But a prosecutor then has to be able to successfully make their case to a jury. Not much action on that front.

    Some “want to avoid” scenarios include the legal system under the Nazis:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Nazi_Germany

    From 1933 to 1945, the Nazi regime ruled Germany and, at times, controlled most of Europe. During this time, Nazi Germany shifted from the post-World War I society which characterized the Weimar Republic and introduced an ideology of “biological racism” into the country’s legal and justicial systems.[1] The shift from the traditional legal system (the “normative state”) to the Nazis’ ideological mission (the “prerogative state”)[1] enabled many of the subsequent acts of the Hitler regime (including its atrocities) to be performed legally. For this to succeed, the normative judicial system needed to be reworked; judges, lawyers and other civil servants acclimatized themselves to the new Nazi laws and personnel. As of 2021, a few laws from the Nazi era still remain codified in German law.[2][3][4][5]

    Or the Star Chamber:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber