Trial by jury?

[Grendonia]

In the UK, the US and most of the Commonwealth, a person accused of a crime can expect to have their case heard by a jury of 12 local people, who will decide (either unanimously or by a simple majority depending on the country) whether they are guilty or not guilty. In other countries, for example France, juries are sometimes used, but only for serious crimes, and in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands they do not exist, with all verdicts being decided by professional judges.

A supposed advantage of jury systems is that they place a check on government power - the accused are judged by their fellow citizens rather than a representative of the state. Members of a local community may be more able to sympathise with the situation of the accused, allowing them to have a fairer hearing. However, the risk of allowing untrained laymen to evaluate a case is they may be swayed by emotion or their personal prejudices, as evidenced by the many cases of black men in the US being wrongly convicted by racist juries. Therefore I can certainly see the argument for leaving the verdict up to legal professionals.

Personally I support the idea of people being tried by their peers, but I can understand why many countries do not use this system. To be honest I'm quite ignorant on how courts actually work, and until recently (like, yesterday) I wasn't even aware that trial by jury is not the norm in most of the world. I'm interesting to find out other perspectives on this issue, because it's not something I'd ever really considered before.

[Page]

I think all people accused of a crime should be entitled to go to trial by jury, even if they're accused of something totally minor like stealing a can of beer from a gas station.

I also support jury nullification and think that every citizen should be aware of that. There are definitely many situations in which I would acquit someone as a juror as a matter of principle.

[Atheris]

Inquisitory trial systems are extremely prone to corruption and are, in many cases, inferior compared to jury trials, especially in Japan between 1943 and 2009.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm not too wedded to the idea. In principle I'd lean towards the idea of judge-only trials since a major function of the state is to mediate between individuals and the community at an arms-length from civil society's biases. Spreading proper institutional norms and a commitment to the "rules of the game" among a small group of judges is easier than to a whole population. It reduces the risk of the decision getting caught up in emotional or performative aspects and possibly limits the ability of someone buying their way out with a skilled enough lawyer.

On the other hand, in places where the independence of the judiciary isn't assured, where corruption/bribery of judges are a widespread problem, and where judges are elected and thus likely to be more political in the way they conduct themselves, a jury-based system is definitely preferable.

[Rojava Free State]

Actually I support trial by fire.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I support trial by jury, though it should not be a requirement if the defendant feels more comfortable being tried by a judge (known as a bench trial). I'm not in favor of restricting this right, though I do support our current setup in the state of NC, which usually tries minor crimes in district courts that don't have juries. Defendants can appeal for a jury trial in a superior court if they are insistent on being tried by jury.

[Lillorainen]

Oii! German here - I have to correct the OP a bit in one little detail: in Germany, juries are a thing during criminal processes; there are usually three professional judges, assisted by two volunteering jurymen (Schöffen in German). Admittedly, this is not the same as the jury system in countries like the U.S. with randomly selected persons (Germany did away with that system in the Weimar Republic), and it isn't used in all court cases, but one cannot say, that there are no non-professional juries in Germany whatsoever. ^^
This being said, I'm personally rather not too sad about Germany not being an ideal location for plots of movies like Twelve Angry Men. While the German system still does provide the expression of people's sovereignty at least in theory, which is also one of the ideas behind the systems of the Anglosphere, it also makes clear, that it's the state that decides over the accused person's future, not the accused person's neighbors (figuratively spoken). Though, I do agree with DI on the matter, that a jury-based system would be the preferable option for countries where the judicial system is notably corrupt or not clearly separated from other powers.

[Phoenicaea]

that’s a milestone which should be spread. it comes after the electoral colleges (also said westminister) parliament. two principles to be imported.

oh, twelve angry men i’ve viewed that movie literally a dozen of times. because i took it via pay-tv, true. also, the italian translate is good.

[The Two Jerseys]

I support jury trials. Can't have jury nullification without them.

[Qabea]

What are some arguments against jury trial? There has to be some big reservation if it's use isn't widespread across the planet.

[Galloism]

I'm not too wedded to the idea. In principle I'd lean towards the idea of judge-only trials since a major function of the state is to mediate between individuals and the community at an arms-length from civil society's biases. Spreading proper institutional norms and a commitment to the "rules of the game" among a small group of judges is easier than to a whole population. It reduces the risk of the decision getting caught up in emotional or performative aspects and possibly limits the ability of someone buying their way out with a skilled enough lawyer.

On the other hand, in places where the independence of the judiciary isn't assured, where corruption/bribery of judges are a widespread problem, and where judges are elected and thus likely to be more political in the way they conduct themselves, a jury-based system is definitely preferable.

This is kind of where I'm at.

In principle, professionals would do better. In practice, those judges can carry some pretty severe biases themselves. I sort of feel about it like I feel about the death penalty. I'm not against the death penalty per se if we had a perfect or near perfect justice system, but in practice the justice system itself is extensively racist and sexist in its application, which implies very severely it's not being handed out fairly. So I'm against the death penalty in practice, although I can imagine scenarios and systems where I wouldn't.

So we need a jury system to put a check on the biases of the judicial system, but that doesn't really make it ideal (as juries have community-driven bias as well).

[Solomons Land]

What are some arguments against jury trial? There has to be some big reservation if it's use isn't widespread across the planet.

I believe most Western nations have juries, but the argument against them is that ordinary people are very prone to suggestion, and are far more likely to be biased. The latter is mitigated by jury selection procedure and (in some systems) the requirement of unanimous agreement, but the former cannot be helped. I still think the defendant should be able to chose between a judge or a jury.

[Kannap]

Yes, I also believe every citizen should know about jury nullification

[Diopolis]

Trial by ordeal says hi. Far superior.

[Pythaga]

In most cases trial by jury is the way to go, as long as the jury is properly selected and briefed.

[Diopolis]

I'm not too wedded to the idea. In principle I'd lean towards the idea of judge-only trials since a major function of the state is to mediate between individuals and the community at an arms-length from civil society's biases. Spreading proper institutional norms and a commitment to the "rules of the game" among a small group of judges is easier than to a whole population. It reduces the risk of the decision getting caught up in emotional or performative aspects and possibly limits the ability of someone buying their way out with a skilled enough lawyer.

On the other hand, in places where the independence of the judiciary isn't assured, where corruption/bribery of judges are a widespread problem, and where judges are elected and thus likely to be more political in the way they conduct themselves, a jury-based system is definitely preferable.

One problem is that, jurors being usually poorer and less vetted than judges, you'd expect them to be more susceptible to bribery than judges, not less(and felony convictions usually require unanimity, so even bribing a single juror to nullify has the same effect as bribing all twelve).
Indeed, jury subversion is usually just as big a problem as judicial corruption, if not more so.

[Seamount]

I support trial by jury.

The whole point of a trial by jury is that the prosecution must convince 12 (or 16 in Scotland) ordinary, everyday men and women – a jury of their peers – that the accused is guilty of the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. This places the burden of guilt firmly on the accuser: convince complete strangers your accusation and supporting evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whereas, to me, trials without juries feel more like the accused must prove innocence rather then the accuser prove guilt. A well-versed lawyer and a sympathetic judge with strong but circumstantial evidence, I think, would produce different results under a trial by jury and a trial by judge/bench.