As much as I understand, the case will be decided by the jury, which consists of people who are not experts either in law or in medicine. Why is this good?
Would you be happy if you were tried by people who know neither the law nor the mater which the trial is about?
Why do law school exist, if a jury of non-experts can decide in the most difficult cases?
"it represents a democratic society". - What about lynching? Was lynching not a "democratic procedure"? In my view, law and democracy are two very different things. Democracy is a reality show, which some people love. Law is (or should be) a precise technical matter, not a reality show.
Let me make it clear what I intended to say. When both sides in a court case put forwards their arguments, I hold that the judge should decide who/what is right and who/what is wrong, not a jury. This is my view; because a judge should know the law better than members of the jury know. If you have a health problem, or if your computer does not function well, you look for an expert, not for a "jury".
Well, sometimes it is not all about the expertise. When crimes take place, they do so within the society, within the environment. Jurors are often drawn from different walks of life. They are persons who live in the society and interact with the environment, peoples and objects in ways which the Judges and other experts don't. So they help bring diverse perspectives to the process and aid the experts in passing judgment.
Steven Kator Iorfa - I agree with you, but I have an impression than nobody of us here is an expert in law. All I know about this issue, I heard from television. They say that a case (process) may last for "weeks and months." And that the the decision of the jury must be "unanimous". So, I ask myself two things. First, who are the members of a jury, who can abandon their work for weeks or months? A teacher or a dentist cannot do that. Second, what if 11 members of a jury reach one conclusion, and one member reach the opposite conclusion? Then there is no unanimous decision, which means that there is no decision at all. We may all have nice ideas about this issue, but things are not so simple as it may seem.
A couple of points. First, jury trials are often about sorting out factual disputes. The judge instructs the jurors about the law. The jurors are the fact-finders. And 12 jurors are much better at sorting out the factual truth than one judge, especially in the area of assessing the credibility of witnesses. Second, judges bring their own biases and prejudices to every case. The question might jokingly be phrased as whether you want the decision to be made by one lunatic in isolation or 12 lunatics balancing each other out. As a lawyer and researcher, I can tell you that I virtually always preferred a jury to a judge for factual decision-making.
Thomas Hogan - Thank you for your explanation! The problem (for me) is the following one. --- "The question might jokingly be phrased as whether you want the decision to be made by one lunatic in isolation or 12 lunatics balancing each other out." --- I am not a lawyer, but I heard that the decision of a jury must be unanimous. So, it seems that one "lunatic" has the power to prevent eleven reasonable people from taking a reasonable decision.
As much as I know, the Supreme Court sometimes decides by five votes to four. As much as I heard, a jury must decide unanimously; it cannot be 7 to 5, or 11 to 1. This surprises me; or I do not understand the process of decision making well.
Because it imparts justice without privileges, seeking the impartiality of all parties, we call that Law from the podium
Celín Pérez Nájera - ok; but I do still not know why the decision (of a jury) must be unanimous, and of the Supreme Court does not need to be unanimous. It is not easy to find twelve people who agree about anything. And who are not partial, for some reason.
Alan M. Sears - Thank you for your explanations! The media (global television news channels) do not explain much in this regard.
Juries serve to determine the facts applied to the law as instructed by a judge. Juries give one a chance to be heard by as close to peers as possible given a legal suit or criminal charge. A jury is good because it filters out bias as much as possible and will not be influenced by others. if trials were always bench trials peer review of legal matters would almost be non-existent. That would be unfortunate and lead to unfair results at times.
Not all states in the U.S. require a unanimous verdict. Louisiana and Oregon permit non-unanimous verdicts. Yes juries will make judgements about facts. For instance, did the prosecutor prove an element of a crime. However, many factual elements of a crime are rooted in legal traditions, which require instructions by judges about how to interpret the law in these instances.
There are debates about whether juries can make judgements about complicated facts involving scientific and significant legal assumptions. For instance, did the prosecutor or plaintiff (in a civil case) prove what caused a specific fact that is reflective of guilt or liability. Did the neurological or mental impairment affect a person's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their behavior. Laypersons can have problems with these concerns, but the participants in the court process have an opportunity to select an appropriate jury. This portion of the process attempts to have biased individuals removed from the process. However, there are questions about whether some cases require special scientific courts because peers are not equipped to determine the kinds of facts in these cases.
I don't agree with the jury "pure system". In fact they are not experts and can be easily manipulated by legal advisors. In my opinion they can act as "consultants", but not as "decision makers".
I asked this question because I knew close to nothing about this issue. Now, I learned many things. The justice system is not impeccable, but I am not sure that the inclusion of a jury makes it better. It probably makes the process more complicated, which is usually not good.
The big advantage of the jury system is that it could neutralize cultural and social biases that are very difficult to keep aside and be objective.
Mario Radovan
At a trial there are two categories of issues to be determined.
1) what facts describe an event that transpired. There may be a consensus on the issue that whatever transpired resulted in death however it is these facts that lead to a determination of guilt or absence of guilt. For example death of one person may be explained in as far as possible as self defence. The jury stands to assess this explanation to determine if it is sound enough to allow the claim.
2) issues of law. here the jury has no part and it entails assessing evidence produced to determine which evidence is legally admissible. after a determination of the facts by the jury the presiding officer then applies their knowledge of the law to the facts held by the jury to be a true reflection of the occurrence.
To conclude where an event occurs one can explain it or perceive it in several different ways. It is assumed that the Jury is a group of the accused's reasonable peers who are in a correct place to examine one's alleged conduct in order to determine if it is consistent with other pieces of evidence... for example it was a fitting response or reaction that they can relate to and expect from a reasonable person. Whatever facts the jury deem to be the correct version of facts are then used by the judge in applying the law.
The jury system tries to:
a)reduce conscious and unconscious bias
b) allow one's actions to be examined by peers or ordinary people who might have or can imagine themselves in a similar position.
c)there is a general perception that the higher the number of people examining evidence the greater the chance that fairness is achieved.
Actually, what is "good" or "bad" in itself IS OPINIONABLE: Theoretically, the basis of the idea that there are "popular juries" is correct, because if it is "the people" who accuse someone (alleged perpetrator ) through the Public Prosecutor's Office, it seems logical that the same people participate in the Trial ... but, until then, THE THEORY, because REALITY USES TO BE ANOTHER (and I say it as a FORENSIC Psychopathologist), because many times the case to judge already It has been disclosed in the press and in the media in general - especially if it is very "mediatic" - and, in such a case, public opinion has already drawn up a preliminary judgment - PREJUDICE - that contaminates the opinion of the Jury, even though it is not aware of this, and therefore it is not totally aseptic and impartial, as is desirable (especially in cases of crimes against Sexual Freedom - harassment, abuse, rape, etc. - crimes in which the victim is a minor or a child , and in short, crimes of great rejection and popular impact; IN FACT, IN MANY COUNTRIES, IN SUCH CA SOS, NO PLACE FOR A POPULAR JURY)
In such cases, at least in the European Union, it is said that the alleged perpetrator or the accused / s are already suffering a "TELEDIARY PENALTY" or "PRESS PENALTY", without having yet passed through the bench of the Court
Jury trials educate jurors about the justice system, he determine community standards and expectations in accordance with the law
In fact, one of the benefits of a healthy jury system is that it deters prosecutors from even bringing marginal cases in the first place
Jury trials educate jurors about the justice system. People who serve on juries have a greater respect for the system when they leave. Serving on a jury gives people insight into the justice system and their own communities, and corrects misapprehensions about what takes place in a courtroom.
Based on your case, ordinary people can be much easier to persuade than judges, who are obviously trained to be unbiased and put aside human emotion in the courtroom. Juries tend to be easier audiences than judges. Oftentimes, stating your case to a jury can be less pressure than a judge's trial.
Based on your case, ordinary people can be much easier to persuade than judges, who are obviously trained to be unbiased and put aside human emotion in the courtroom. Juries tend to be easier audiences than judges. Oftentimes, stating your case to a jury can be less pressure than a judge trial.
The role of the jury is to provide unbiased views or resolutions to evidence presented in a case in a court of law. Jury service helps to support fairness in trials; jury service is able to give impartial viewpoints on cases that are presented in court.