Why do courts have juries?
Why do people, who don't really have any knowledge in law, decide a case in court? Shouldn't the court decide based on laws and not the intuition of a layperson?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
OliRos · 18-21, F
That is an argument against democracy.
If governments were chosen by experts who understood government, we would not have to have all these expensive elections and parliaments/congresses/senates.
Much more efficient.
The only problem is, the citizen is not there to serve the state. It's the other way around.
The citizen is the state. The government and the courts - and all they represent for society - are extensions of the citizen.
Jury service and voting are two key rights and duties of the citizen. Rights that we give ourselves.
If governments were chosen by experts who understood government, we would not have to have all these expensive elections and parliaments/congresses/senates.
Much more efficient.
The only problem is, the citizen is not there to serve the state. It's the other way around.
The citizen is the state. The government and the courts - and all they represent for society - are extensions of the citizen.
Jury service and voting are two key rights and duties of the citizen. Rights that we give ourselves.
View 3 more replies »
OliRos · 18-21, F
@NativePortlander1970 Is there a "true democracy"?
@OliRos Not any honest one.
OliRos · 18-21, F
@NativePortlander1970 Is there or isn't there?
Northwest · M
This answer is specific to the USA. Our Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to trial by a jury of their peers. That is called trial by Jury. The verdict is rendered by the Jury.
A defendant can ask for a bench triall. The latter is heard only by the judge and a verdict is rendered by the Judge alone.
Case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
Defendant Donald J. Trump decided to exercise his right to a Trial by Jury in his federal criminal case, hoping that he can sway at least a single juror, resulting in a hung jury. Lauren Boebert was also hoping for the same outcome, which is why she showed up.
A defendant can ask for a bench triall. The latter is heard only by the judge and a verdict is rendered by the Judge alone.
Case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.
Defendant Donald J. Trump decided to exercise his right to a Trial by Jury in his federal criminal case, hoping that he can sway at least a single juror, resulting in a hung jury. Lauren Boebert was also hoping for the same outcome, which is why she showed up.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Northwest i don't understand your point. of course everything evolves, the Magna Carta put into writing what had been evolving.
Northwest · M
@samueltyler2 Jesus Christ. Read the original comment.
wonkywinky · 51-55, M
I think it was part of the Magna Carta or something.The right to be ultimately judged by your peers,rather than just a judge or other politician.A judge might not like the look of you and just condemn you anyway,regardless.A jury at least are common people like yourself who will hopefully judge you on the merits of evidence,rather than your character.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@wonkywinky yes, here is a history as published by the far left, wink wink, Cornell Law School:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/right-to-trial-by-jury-historical-background
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/right-to-trial-by-jury-historical-background
@wonkywinky Forced onto King John in 1215AD, which is loosely based on Hamurabi.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
Professional Juries, qualified in law, would be a good idea, if you could guarantee their integrity. As it is, you get a dozen random people who werent smart enough to dodge jury duty..😷
wonkywinky · 51-55, M
@whowasthatmaskedman Professional juries would be just as bad as trial by committee.Lawyers would be elected as jurors.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@wonkywinky Its true. The moment you put a human in the picture, you introduce a flaw. I guess that some computer whizz will come up with a program that will contain all legal precedent and be able to dispense dispassionate justice. Think of the lawyers that would be out of business and have to get real jobs..😷
496sbc · 36-40, M
And just curious cant the judge over rule the jury / is that possible ???
daisymay · 51-55, T
Shouldn't the court decide based on laws and not the intuition of a layperson?
No, that is a horrible idea and antithetical to our Constitution.
You're describing authortarianism, a totolitarian dictatorship, you know, 1984.
This message was deleted by its author.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Luke73 actually, I believe, the defendant has the choice. In the prior case tried in NY, Trump chose a trial without a jury. The judge was the only person who looked at the evidence and made the decision that Trump had as guilty of civil crimes.
Luke73 · 22-25, M
@samueltyler2 I don't know anything about the US law.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Luke73 I am not a lawyer, but if you look at both of the recent trials, one was sans jury, at the choice of trump and his attorneys, the other was with a jury. The US law gives the benefit of almost everything to the defendant, the case for the government has to be held to the standard, beyond any reasonable doubt!