[Grizzly]

I never really understood the obsession some countries have with jurys in trails. I never really understood why someone would choose 5 random persons to make the final judgement on whether somoen is guilty or not , instead of several trained professionals with experiences in all aspects of a trail (as the judges in The Netherlands are required to be). To me, it can lead to stuff like mob justice and sensational trails, which several random persons are much easier to fall for...

Is there any particular reason several countries use jurys at all, as opposed to letting several judges decide amongs themselves whether someone is guilty or not?

[The E]

First up, it's a "trial", not a trail.

Second, I highly recommend reading the wikipedia page on the subject.

[Dilmah G]

Yes. There is that whole principle involved here regarding being 'judged by one's own peers', thus the first reason the jury is present. But you're touching on something valid there, as far as I know, juries are susceptible to being swayed by emotive arguments made by a counsel rather than one that stands taller factually, being paid off by the accused, being influenced by relation to the accused (good example of this a few years ago in Aus with an ex-liberal MP being let off because one of the jury members refused to agree to his conviction...the fact he was the President of the 'Young Liberals' notwithstanding).

[666maslo666]

It is indeed very strange, and reminds me of mob rule. Average person is pretty stupid. Jurys may be a good idea as a safeguard against convicting someone under weird laws, but I strongly believe that it should take a decision made by a legal professional to actually convict someone, as opposed to untrained laymen with limited understanding of intricacies of justice and easily swayed by emotions or prejudice.

[headdie]

It is indeed very strange, and reminds me of mob rule. Average person is pretty stupid. Jurys may be a good idea as a safeguard against convicting someone under weird laws, but I strongly believe that it should take a decision made by a legal professional to actually convict someone, as opposed to untrained laymen with limited understanding of intricacies of justice and easily swayed by emotions or prejudice.

Trial by jury has a few advantages.

firstly judgement is passed by the accused's piers rather than by government so there is less scope for accusations of there being an agenda beyond the reasonable application of law by the government.  also that judgement has to be made in the bounds of the law.  Also that mob rule is why to serve on the jury you must have no prior connection to the case so that the jury react to the evidence and not to any previous knowledge or prejudice of the case, the defendant or the victim.

Also it reduces the scope for corruption.  A panel of Judges are an obvious target for corruption because in a system without a jury they decide both guilt and pass sentence, basically they for the lynch pin for the whole court system in that capacity and because they sit a judges for many years can be worked on over time if needed, everyone has their price, it is not always money but everyone can be bought.  With a random jury there is less opportunity to try and buy them out, though if attempted they might be more susceptible.

The problems with juries include but are not restricted to, in complex cases they might not be able to follow the evidence as well as would be desirable.  They also take people out of the working population, while the number for each case is small compared to even regional figures if you have 10 trials sitting at one time that is 120 people.  also as I mentioned above, should the identity of the jury become known then attempts to affect their decision might be more successful than against a professional.

[karajorma]

Thinking about the pros and cons of bench vs jury trials does make me wonder if there could be a working hybrid of the two.

[Flipside]

Well, it depends, it is possible for a magistrate to pass summary judgement on certain issues, though that happens rarely.

When I was on Jury service, there was a very interesting case involving Stolen Goods, and a guys' girlfriend who was accused of handling them. (By the way it is legal to discuss the case as long as no names or other details are given) The fact was that, according to the letter of the law, she was probably guilty, but this woman quite obviously had no choice but to allow the goods to be stored in the house, or get hit by her boyfriend, so the Jury had a problem with the concept of 'consent' in the case and found for the defendent.

I think it's issues like that where the law needs to be more than a book of words.

[BloodEagle]

I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., a defendant can request trial by judge, rather than trial by jury. So....

[Grizzly]

I'm pretty sure that, in the U.S., a defendant can request trial by judge, rather than trial by jury. So....

Ah, that's quite cool. How many judges are present in such a case? How does it work in general (might be different from Holland...)

It is indeed very strange, and reminds me of mob rule. Average person is pretty stupid. Jurys may be a good idea as a safeguard against convicting someone under weird laws, but I strongly believe that it should take a decision made by a legal professional to actually convict someone, as opposed to untrained laymen with limited understanding of intricacies of justice and easily swayed by emotions or prejudice.

Trial by jury has a few advantages.

firstly judgement is passed by the accused's piers rather than by government so there is less scope for accusations of there being an agenda beyond the reasonable application of law by the government.  also that judgement has to be made in the bounds of the law.  Also that mob rule is why to serve on the jury you must have no prior connection to the case so that the jury react to the evidence and not to any previous knowledge or prejudice of the case, the defendant or the victim.

It is quite troublesome to find people like that with high profile cases, such as with that Micheal Jackson one that is running right now (which is why I brought this topic up, as it is seems rather like mob justice (burn the witch! He poisoned Jackson!) and sensationilism here).

Also it reduces the scope for corruption.  A panel of Judges are an obvious target for corruption because in a system without a jury they decide both guilt and pass sentence, basically they for the lynch pin for the whole court system in that capacity and because they sit a judges for many years can be worked on over time if needed, everyone has their price, it is not always money but everyone can be bought.  With a random jury there is less opportunity to try and buy them out, though if attempted they might be more susceptible.

Hmm. You have a point with the first argument. However, you can closely monitor judges once they take the job because of that very reason, whilst you can't with random persons without, say, facing a trial. As for the working over time... I don't think so. The judges assigned to cases are also rather random, AFAIK. Its impossible to work ALL of them over time...

The problems with juries include but are not restricted to, in complex cases they might not be able to follow the evidence as well as would be desirable.  They also take people out of the working population, while the number for each case is small compared to even regional figures if you have 10 trials sitting at one time that is 120 people.  also as I mentioned above, should the identity of the jury become known then attempts to affect their decision might be more successful than against a professional.

Hmm. I did not know the idendity of the jury was kept in the dark, although I am quite sure it would surface when the trail begins, same as with judges I geuss?

[MP-Ryan]

Methinks there are some misunderstandings about the role of judge and jury in Common Law...

First off, the US and Canada allow an accused to select trial by judge and jury, or trial by judge alone.  Not sure about Britain and Australia - their systems are a little different, despite the fact that all four are based on Common law principles.  Different countries have different roles that a judge fulfills (in the US, judges are concerned first and foremost with the admissibility of evidence; in Canada, the judge is the trier of fact and admissibility is less important than the best, truthful evidence being laid before the court; Britain tends to lean even further that way, where refusal to make statements can actually be used against an accused).

However, in North America at least, a trial is always presided over by a judge.  S/he will always do two things, primarily:  evaluate the admissibility and relevance of evidence given before the court, and weigh the evidence to reach a conclusion.  In a trial by judge alone, they will also render a verdict.  In a trial by jury (which has 12 members, FYI), they will give instructions to the jury on how evidence is to be evaluated, what conclusions can be legitimately reached, what verdicts are available, and clarify any legal questions the jury may have.  A judge will always break down a case for the jury such that no knowledge of the legal system is actually required to render a verdict; their decision becomes a weighing solely of facts, rather than legalities.

Sentencing in criminal cases is then determined by the judge, often in consultation with prosecutors and the defense.

The reason the option is given to the defence to select trial by judge alone or judge/jury is because there are pros and cons to both.  Judges tend to be better at applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, but juries are better at reaching a more moderated conclusion (because there are 12 biases, preconceptions, and opinions that have to reach a unanimous conclusion).  Ultimately, while one person trained in the legal system is good at evaluating facts to a standard, judges are fallible (particularly where they are elected and beholden to voters).  Juries provide a nice balance to that fallibility, while retaining the legal integrity of the process.

Since I see someone asked as I hit post, lower criminal courts generally have a single judge no matter how the defendant elects to proceed, appeals courts usually sit three judges at once, and the Supreme Court of Canada (and if my memory serves, the US too) seats nine.

Lastly, never believe anything you see on TV or read in fiction about the court process of any country; entertainment is fantasy, particularly where the legal system is concerned.  I highly encourage everyone to attend open court proceedings to learn about the legal system in your country; it's a great experience that will teach you quite a bit (I've spent several dozen hours in courtrooms over the last 10 years, both for work and out of personal interest, and it's been really helpful).

[MP-Ryan]

It is quite troublesome to find people like that with high profile cases, such as with that Micheal Jackson one that is running right now (which is why I brought this topic up, as it is seems rather like mob justice (burn the witch! He poisoned Jackson!) and sensationilism here).

Aha!  That explains it.  What you're seeing is an adversarial justice system.  The tone you're referring to is not a result of jury trials (though they do tend to be more sensationalist, especially for high-profile cases), it's the way Common Law justice systems usually work.  The US is the most extreme example, where prosecutors and defense attorneys are often at verbal fisticuffs, but in Canada the "my friend" monkier by which the prosecutor and defense refer to each other is often a euphemism for "that ****head over on the other side," as you can frequently tell by tone =P

Adversarial justice systems may look sensationalist to outsiders, but they work very, very well.  Basically, the setup is like this:

1.  The investigator (police, whatever) presents all the evidence, both for and against an accused, to the prosecutor.
2.  The prosecutor evaluates the evidence and determines if they proceed on charges (this step has some variations depending on the country; Americans have grand juries involved too).
3.  Charges are laid by either the investigator or prosecutor if the evidence warrants it.
[3.b. - depending on the jurisidiction, a preliminary hearing may occur where a judge evaluates if there is sufficient evidence to proceed].
4.  Defendant is summoned to court and makes a plea (guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of mental defect are the common ones).
5.  If the plea is a variation of not guilty, case proceeds to trial.
6.  Defendant chooses trial by judge and jury, or by judge alone (depending on the crime; some do not allow jury trials in some places).
7.  Prosecutor is responsible for presenting all the inculpatory (he's guilty!) evidence at trial, and has to disclose their entire cases, including all exculpatory (he might not be guilty) evidence to the defense.  The prosecutor must prove the inculpatory evidence shows the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If the prosecutor doesn't meet this burden, then the charges fail (and often the defense may not even need to make arguments if the prosecutor has not proved their case sufficiently).
8.  The defense is responsible for questioning and examining the evidence presented by the prosecutor in order to show that there is reasonable doubt of guilt.  In some cases, the defense may also call their own evidence to further poke holes in the prosecution's case.  The defense generally does their job not by making a prosecution case appear entirely false; rather, their role is to demonstrate sufficient evidence exists to show their client probably isn't guilty.
9.  The judge is the impartial trier of fact in all of this.  They don't get involved in the brawl, rather they referee the conduct of the prosecutor and defense to hold the evidence given in court to an admissible and relevant standard.  They evaluate the facts, make legal judgements on the conduct of the trial, and respond to motions by the prosecution and defense to dismiss and admit evidence.  The judge does this in all trials.
10.  The jury, and the judge in non-jury trials, is responsible for weighing the evidence given before the court to determine if it meets the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to determine guilt.  If the evidence does not meet that standard, they are required to make a finding of not guilty.

The adversarial system can be contrasted to the French system (and some lower English courts involving magistrates, IIRC) where the judge is actively involved in the case and actively works on the side of the prosecution.  This may be similar to the Netherlands, whose justice system I know nothing about.