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 personally think it’s better to have 12 people deliberating over the evidence etc and formulating reasons for their conviction than one
I’d rather have a professional judge me than some randos who just want to get home quick (but also, some countries have three judges and I think it’s possibly the best way to deal with the problem)
in a country where the majority of judges are elected by popular vote or placed by political agemdas? nah i’d take the jury
deleted by creator
Being a lawyer makes someone less qualified to judge criminal guilt, not more.
Doesn’t a judge have to agree on the decision of the jury anyway? Like if there is no doubt of a crime and the jury comes back with a not guilty the judge can tell the jury to go back and discussed it again or dismiss the jury and start again.
In the US, no. Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong. In criminal cases, if the jury can’t come to a unanimous decision, then the judge can send them back to deliberate further or declare a hung jury and the prosecution can decide if they want to try again. If the jury comes back with a unanimous verdict then it stands. If the defendant doesn’t agree with the verdict, they can choose to appeal to a higher court, which can then decide to hear the case or let the verdict stand. Cases where the jury returns a not-guilty verdict even though the evidence presented clearly shows that the law was broken are called jury nullification. It’s a last line of defense against unjust laws.
People who have no education regarding the law should not be deciding anything regarding the law.
They generally don’t. Juries do not interpret the law, they just look at the evidence for both sides and decide which is right. The judge tells them what the law is. In fact, attorneys for both sides really don’t want lawyers or legal professionals on juries.
To be fair, they are not making the law, nor are they making the punishment. They are only determining guilt. If that requires education, then it’s the courts job to do so during the trial so the jury can make an informed choice. And in the most extreme cases, all the jurors must come to a consensus - meaning that as a whole, the outcome is beyond reasonable doubt regardless of who is in the jury.
To do any less means to give certain individuals more power. And we have special cases for that too, as not everything requires a jury. So unless you’re willing to give up all power, this should be a sufficient balance of power.
Jury duty still sucks though.
someone without knowledge of history can better point out idiotic decisions that were made for historical reasons, and will not interpret things in the same outdated ways
While I agree, jury duty can also be extremely damaging psychologically to the random people picked for it. It’s kind of a weird thing to think about that I’m just hanging out and one day could get forced into hearing gory details of a fucked up crime that will give me PTSD just because it is my civic duty. (I know most cases are not this, but is it worth it?)
Tbh it’s really not that hard to get out of jury duty. If all else fails, just start handing out zines about juror nullification, they’ll ask you to leave.
You can conscientiously object, you are not forced to go through it if you are not psychologically able to.
Would you rather have 12 people from the street judging what kind of medical treatment is best for you, or just a single medical specialist?
Such a shit comparison lol wtf
That really depends on the Doctor
Hard agree.
It could go either way.