Judgement by jury

Simon, thats what i was talkiing about. I live in ex #$^*& communists country :), and corruption really is a problem at courts. But - juries here would be mostly elderly or jobless people (if we would make the juries), so as I told - it would be even much easyer (at least cheaper) to corrupt them as to corrupt 5 judges. i have no doubt that in countries where jury is historically established and rpoved system it works very good and theres no need to change something. Also that system works very well and balanced with english/american law. In the continental law I does not think it should fit very good.

Yes, I see your point and did not really counter it. It is true that juries will be poorer than judges, but I am not sure that makes them more susceptible to corruption. If a majority verdict is possible, then one would have to bribe more people and so there is more of a chance of enough of them being honest.

With judges, I have suspicion that in UK history they were often in the pocket of powerful people and so the jury system was one "democractic" way of trying to counter that.

In some developing countries, I fear the legal system is just geared up for corruption, so again a jury system might be cleaner.

But I admit I am being a little speculative here. I know that were intimidation is a really big problem - eg with terrorists in N. Ireland and maybe the mafia in Italy - juries may be vulnerable and trying to rely on "incorruptible" magistrates may be the best way forward.

as practicing inhabitant of , lets say, developing country and practicing lawyer in it, I should say, that it wouldnt be surprise, that jury would be "democratically ellected" friends and blababla of the one or other side in trial :) So it would not help.

If the system is corrupted - there are many holes from ground levels. I can tell sample - not all judges, off course, are corrupted here, I wpould even say, that bigger part of them are not. But if you want your case to get decided by corrupted judge, you first have to talk to ordinary secretary at court who will help your case "to find" the right judge :). So I believe, clever person could find holes in any system.

I guess both systems ar well where they belong. One more thing - as in most Europe death penalty is not sentenced any more, there are also less need to think about jury, because this is probably only sentence where objectivness of high number of persons and unanimous decision about guilt could play some extra role.

I think Juries are less susceptible to bribery and corruption because there are more of them, they make one-off judgements, so you can't have a tame juror in your pocket, and because they have less to lose, they are harder to blackmail to keep them on your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

I think Juries are less susceptible to bribery and corruption because there are more of them, they make one-off judgements, so you can't have a tame juror in your pocket, and because they have less to lose, they are harder to blackmail to keep them on your side.

---

But a juror´s decision is not public. If bribed, he can make the most outragous of decisions without fearing prosecution. The verdict of a judge can be checked by any number of other judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But a juror´s decision is not public. If bribed, he can make the most outragous of decisions without fearing prosecution. The verdict of a judge can be checked by any number of other judges.

---

Jurors can be “polled” making their votes public. If found guilty or innocent it is safe to guess which way they voted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Jurors can be “polled” making their votes public. If found guilty or innocent it is safe to guess which way they voted.

---

Yes, but it would also matter why they voted that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Yes, but it would also matter why they voted that way.

---

Good, I fully agree....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But a juror´s decision is not public. If bribed, he can make the most outragous of decisions without fearing prosecution. The verdict of a judge can be checked by any number of other judges.

---

Last I checked, appeals still apply to jury trials too.

yes, its a good question. I have forgotten from studies about appeals in jury system. So, in the countries with jury - what about the way to appeal jury decision and if its not the last instance, then who decides the appeal - another jury? Is the jury part of all instances or only the last one? Lot of holes in my memory :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Last I checked, appeals still apply to jury trials too.

---

But they have no consequences for the juror. I don´t think a judge likes his verdicts to be overruled, so he will be more conscious about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But they have no consequences for the juror. I don´t think a judge likes his verdicts to be overruled, so he will be more conscious about them.

---

And that is a good thing how?

Pandering to ego rather then making a judgement based on fact and justice is hardly a plus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Last I checked, appeals still apply to jury trials too.

---

And the higher court doesn't use jury ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

And the higher court doesn't use jury ??

---

No the higher court only reviews problems strictely of law, so putting a jury in that too will be definitely proposterous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And that is a good thing how?

Pandering to ego rather then making a judgement based on fact and justice is hardly a plus.

---

I´m not sure I understand you. What does that have to do with pandering to ego? It seems reasonable to assume that verdicts that are in accordance with the facts and the law have a higher chance not to be overruled. Accountability is usually assumed to make for reliability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

No the higher court only reviews problems strictely of law, so putting a jury in that too will be definitely proposterous.

---

I agree, when it is an issue of law clarification or an appeal based on law interpretations a jury would not be appropriate. And the fact that there is usually more than 1 judge reviewing the situation is “appealing”. ~:)

I hear what Adrian & Bmolsson are saying... that correct application of law is too important to leave it to the fickle whims of one's neighbors. But consider the alternative.... when you have an all-professional legal system, the citizens become disenfranchised from the legal system. Those of us who opt not to go into the law profression have no hope of understanding the arcane & byzantine machinations at work. Many times we cannot even understand the language being spoken, as it's neither English, nor Latin. Many times, we may not even understand the nature of the charges against us. We can only sit back and hope like hell our professional knows more than the other professional. That's essentially where America is right now, and the only balance against that is the 12 everyday joes sitting in the jury box. At the end of the day, for the prosecutor to throw me in jail for something most people don't even understand, he has to convince 12 people, like myself, that I did do something wrong and that I knew it was wrong when I did it. Likewise, my spin doctor, in coming up with clever reasons why I should be absolved will have his own common-sense sniff tests to pass. Having the judge decide all verdicts means that you've gone full tilt over... that the only true citizens are those with a law degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I agree, when it is an issue of law clarification or an appeal based on law interpretations a jury would not be appropriate. And the fact that there is usually more than 1 judge reviewing the situation is “appealing”. ~:)

---

Well though i agree with you at this point, because it will be totally unfoundable to say that the jury must interpret the law, i cannot agree in any point of the "common law" system in general. It appears to be flexible, but then you accumulate thousands of archives with precedents of cases that no human can know. The codificated law is far better and rational. To me the common law is archaic and should be at least modified, as USA has done in some cases creating statutes and interpretation that are subsidiary or resume the precedents. But in general there's nothing great about the common law. And this has to do with everything because first: most nations on the world follow a code and second: the common law is perfect for the inplementation of the law, because almost all cases are freed to the arbitrary interpretation of a judge or a jury, the code puts limits to this. The discussion can go on and on, but i'll discuse the system if necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

No the higher court only reviews problems strictely of law, so putting a jury in that too will be definitely proposterous.

---

Hmm... So the jury is only for the first instance... I understand less and less the point with a jury.... :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I hear what Adrian & Bmolsson are saying... that correct application of law is too important to leave it to the fickle whims of one's neighbors. But consider the alternative.... when you have an all-professional legal system, the citizens become disenfranchised from the legal system. Those of us who opt not to go into the law profression have no hope of understanding the arcane & byzantine machinations at work. Many times we cannot even understand the language being spoken, as it's neither English, nor Latin. Many times, we may not even understand the nature of the charges against us. We can only sit back and hope like hell our professional knows more than the other professional. That's essentially where America is right now, and the only balance against that is the 12 everyday joes sitting in the jury box. At the end of the day, for the prosecutor to throw me in jail for something most people don't even understand, he has to convince 12 people, like myself, that I did do something wrong and that I knew it was wrong when I did it. Likewise, my spin doctor, in coming up with clever reasons why I should be absolved will have his own common-sense sniff tests to pass. Having the judge decide all verdicts means that you've gone full tilt over... that the only true citizens are those with a law degree.

---

You miss the point with a court. It's there to enforce the laws, not to make them. Citizens makes the laws through the democratic process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

You miss the point with a court. It's there to enforce the laws, not to make them. Citizens makes the laws through the democratic process.

---

NO! YOU miss the point. As I was careful to point out, the United States is different. Our courts have annointed themselves the right to declare law from the bench. No other country in the world does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

NO! YOU miss the point. As I was careful to point out, the United States is different. Our courts have annointed themselves the right to declare law from the bench. No other country in the world does that.

---

Yes your country pisses over the separation of power, Montesquieu like. I've readed that the legislative power only exeptionally makes laws that rule over the society with imperative, general and undifined caracter, almost all statutes are called "acts" or "bills", and are administratives resolutions. I really don't see the point of a Congress at all (a Parlament), it appears to be totally formal. And talking about abritariness, even if the system functions with a jury, then the common law is the most arbitrary system of all, it leaves the law totally open for interpretation of a reduced group. Wow i'm noticing now that the main problem is on the very begining, in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As I was careful to point out, the United States is different.

---

No wonder no wars are illegal....... ~D