The idea is not that science or some "expert" judges those under trial.
It's that the society they live in finds them either guilty or not.
Jury's are representatives of what the society things happened.
It's an extremely democratic institution, and juries and their role they have been devised and praised by "trained people" including the very best legal minds.
Of course it's not fool prouf -- the same ways society and laws are not foul prof (e.g. consider racism). But those for things, an expert wouldn't help either.
That is not always true, it really does depend on the crime. Jury Nullification does still exist and is becoming more popular especially for things like Drug Laws.
Also some self defense cases are better for Jury, where as some may be better for a Bench Trial
It depends on if your guilt or innocent hangs on an emotional reaction, or a strict application of the law.
I've recounted my jury duty experience several times on HN (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10056421). So, I won't retell the whole thing. The short version is it was a DUI trial for a guy having a party in his front yard and playing music (too) loudly from his truck. That is, he wasn't driving or planning to drive, but he was intoxicated with his keys in the ignition of an automobile – technically a DUI. I ended up being the sole not guilty vote. Technically, he broke the law, but I wasn't going to give the guy a DUI for that behavior – possibly a felony, probably lose/suspend his license, possibly lose a job, etc. Anyway, it was really hard to be the lone dissenter when everybody else just wants to be done and go home to their families or whatever.
I just wanted to comment that most people seem to be totally unaware of jury nullification, and you need to be careful explicitly mentioning the idea. Judges can and have removed jurors who are openly engaging in jury nullification.
So, educate yourself on the topic beforehand if you get a jury duty summons. Thankfully, I'd discussed the issue with a lawyer friend.
> That is not always true, it really does depend on the crime. Jury Nullification does still exist and is becoming more popular especially for things like Drug Laws.
How is that a counter-example to the guideline "if you're guilty you want a jury trial"? It sounds like you're saying if I'm guilty of drug possession I want a jury trial.
Some judges are anything but impartial, and are seemingly committed to getting a conviction at all costs. In fact this is one of the problems that the jury system is designed to protect us from.
You're saying a jury will reach the wrong verdict more than 50% of the time, and a bench will reach the right verdict more than 50% of the time? I don't disagree, but are there statistics?
That's not necessary. If we assume that both juries and judges pick the correct verdict with a certain probability independent of what the correct verdict is, then all that is required that the jury has a higher probability of being wrong than the judge.
Yep, makes sense. So is there some kind of data to back up the claim that a jury is wrong more often? Perhaps verdicts are more likely to be overturned for juries?
In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on. Also, the jurors cannot get the court transcript or ask the prosecution to repeat the charges.
How is this the best alternative? Why can't jurors learn what they are incarcerating for?
> In this article, and apparently this happens a lot, jurors are not allowed to research the laws they are supposed to reach a verdict on
The judge includes the law the defendant is charged with violating and an explanation of what must be proved and what legal defenses that are (with advice from both the prosecution and defense on what to include and on the wording) in the jury instruction material given to the jury before deliberation. Unless the judge and the defense attorney seriously screw up, that should give the jury everything they need to know about the relevant laws.
Part one, with jury #1, just considers the facts. It does not attempt to apply the law to the facts to render a guilty/not-guilty verdict.
Part two presents the facts as determined in part one to jury #2 (which was not present during part one), and jury #2 applies that law to those facts to render a verdict. The facts as presented to jury #2 are cleaned up to replace names with pseudonyms, and race, gender, etc., are removed (unless they are relevant to the applicable law).
Nothing can be as biased and conservative as "trained professional judges".
Not to mention they tend to reflect the interests and prejudices of their kind and class -- not the society at large, who is supposed to be the one whose moral system and will is to be enforced in the legal/justice system.
Is it really worse than delegating it to general population, whose interests and prejudices are shaped by bullshit media narratives, and whose primary interest in the case is to get out of it as fast as possible?
In Japan lay judges (citizens) were re-introduced into trials in order to offer defendants a possibly more sympathetic audience.
In Japan, due to quite a few idiosyncrasies[1], prosecutors achieve upwards of 95% conviction rates.
An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases.
[1] often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc...
My apologies, but I find your comment somewhat confusing.
> In Japan lay judges (citizens) were re-introduced into trials in order to offer defendants a possibly more sympathetic audience. In Japan, due to quite a few idiosyncrasies[1], prosecutors achieve upwards of 95% conviction rates.
> often no attorneys during interrogation, forced confessions, detentions without charges, taking up only choice cases, declaring "accidents" rather than pursuing murder, etc...
How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ? Aren't they attacking the wrong part of the problem ?
> An imperfect jury system is likely better, in criminal cases, than having cozy professionals decide cases.
I find it hard to believe that professionals would be more incapable of sympathy.
Unfortunately I was talking about two things simultaneously without making the connection.
One, with professional juries (judges) a high conviction rate is achieved in Japan, possibly contributed to by the cozy relationship between attorneys and judges as well as some deficiencies in how its determined when to take a case in addition to laws and in addition to police misconduct.
One of the reasons (there were others, such as decreasing backlog) for the introduction of lay judges ("peer" jurors) was because it's thought they could prove more sympathetic to defendants.
> How are any of these problems solved by introducing lay judges ?
Haven't studied this, but I would expect that it's in order to break the cozy (word used above) inner-circle relationship of professional lawyers who work in courts, switching roles between judge and prosecutor. The problem being isolation of the legal profession from "lay people".
Impartiality and expertise are not necessarily correlated. In fact in my experience, experts tend to hold much stronger personal opinions about their area of expertise, than do members of the random general public.
It's that the society they live in finds them either guilty or not.
Jury's are representatives of what the society things happened.
It's an extremely democratic institution, and juries and their role they have been devised and praised by "trained people" including the very best legal minds.
Of course it's not fool prouf -- the same ways society and laws are not foul prof (e.g. consider racism). But those for things, an expert wouldn't help either.