Why is the Jury system still prevalent in the USA. What are its advantages?
sankaraiah asked:
The Jury system which was prevalent in the pre independent India was discontinued and Judges solely give the Judgement.The jurors selected by the Lawyers may be laymen and may not be in a position to come to a verdict of guilty/non guilty and also they may be influenced by the co-jurors. Hence this system may not be correct.
The Jury system which was prevalent in the pre independent India was discontinued and Judges solely give the Judgement.The jurors selected by the Lawyers may be laymen and may not be in a position to come to a verdict of guilty/non guilty and also they may be influenced by the co-jurors. Hence this system may not be correct.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Even if someone is guilty of a crime they can get off by simply having one juror feel bad for them and not vote guilty.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Even in jury trials, the judge (i think) is able to declare a mistrial if s/he thinks the jury’s decision is completely off base. Having one judge to make the final decision is simply a bad idea, what if he is biased for some reason? Judges are human and do have biases even if they aren’t suppose to. If any changes are made, it should be towards creating a career of being jury members (professionally trained jurors instead of laypeople). But, professionalizing juries would lead to increase court fees and probably isn’t very practical.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
We get judged by our peers, who have no perceived bias one way or the other, rather than by a prosecutor or judge who might have political reasons to find someone guilty.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:46 am
to risky for one person to determine fate
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 am
The right to a jury in a criminal trial comes from the Sixth amendment:
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The right to a jury under a civil action (lawsuit) comes from the Seventh amendment (note that the amount in controversy is now higher than noted in the original amendment wording):
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The person being tried can usually waive the right to a jury trial.
What the jury is supposed to do is be the “trier of fact.” that is, the jury looks at the matters in dispute, and makes a determination of which way each fact should go. That is, whose side is favored by a fact.
How “certain” the jury has to be about a fact depends on the type of trial. In civil matters, it’s generally a preponderance of the evidence. That is, they have to be more certain than not that a fact is true. (Think a little over half certain.) In a criminal matter, it has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means convinced that the fact is true.
In addition, the number of jurors on the jury and the number of those that have to be convinced of the guilt (criminal) or liability (civil) of one side or the other depends on the court and the type of trial. In criminal trials, it’s 12 of 12. In a civil trial, it’s less.
With the determination of the facts, the judge is able to determine to which side the matter goes, based on the law.
The end result, the jury aren’t making judgment as much as they’re applying the applicable law as determined by the judge in light of how they decide the given facts.
I don’t know that this is necessarily incorrect. I think it’s nice to have some things in the hands of people besides the lawyers. But, it is the trend to get rid of juries, especially in civil matters.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Because Judges like all politicians can be bought! Jurors cost more!