Trial by jury

I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but in the U.S., jury role is primarily centered around trying of fact, not law.

And while I would readily agree that a judge is better at procedure, at knowing the law, possibly even at management, I've seen very little to indicate that say, a judge would be the better determiner of which of two diametrically opposed witness statements is the one from the lying party.

And again in the U.S., the jury does not actually perform tasks that are reliant on the actual expertise of the professionals: they don't rule on objections, or make a deterimination as to what law if there are multiple unclear ones to be applied is in fact the one the defendant will be judged by. They simply take the facts and apply them to the law.

As an aside, the split also creates another important benefit. Again, I'm working from U.S. law that I'm familiar with, but there are numerous bits of evidence that might be inadmissible for any number of reasons, some of which will have nothing to do with the accuracy of said evidence (drugs seized on an illegal search, for instance) Someone has to make a determination if questionable evidence is to be admitted, and whomever makes that decision is going to necessarily have to see the evidence. If that is the same person who is making the ultimate finding, they're going to have to be extremely intellectually disciplined to avoid it tainting their finding. Much better, or at least easier to ensure that the trier of fact doesn't see the inadmissible stuff in the first place.

Come back when you've read your first case that was re-tried on appeal because of incorrect jury instructions.

Juries do not and never have been asked to make judgments of law. Their job is to evaluate facts in specific to the case.

>Come back when you've read your first case that was re-tried on appeal because of incorrect jury instructions.
Why would I ever do that?

>Juries do not and never have been asked to make judgments of law. Their job is to evaluate facts in specific to the case.
And why wouldn't an expert with extensive knowledge in relevant fields be more qualified to do that?

common sense has a big role to play, judging what's wrong and right. That's the reason

The law is supposed to reflect the society and it's culture. It only makes sense to bring some average people in.

>Why would I ever do that?
Because your incorrect notions on what the function of a jury is alarms me in a professional sense.

>And why wouldn't an expert with extensive knowledge in relevant fields be more qualified to do that?
Exactly what field would that be? Who are these alleged experts? Legal training does not in fact even attempt to teach you what among multiple, possibly inconsistent sources of valid evidence are the more reliable and more relevant.

>trusting a handful of politically connected upper class people to use absolute power responsibly

You're right OP, and why do we have elections when the experts can decide who's a better candidate?

You're right. We should scrap the elections

>experts in virtually every other field rely on consensus and peer review
>lol judges are 2cool4skool

>peer review

Yes, and then hold fast trials without legal defence, because the expert is always right and benevolent.

12 random people are not peers to legal experts.

When you go to check your prostate you don't expect 12 random guys to declare your diagnosis.

>professional truth interpreters
ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE

What about AI trials

Don't know man, Americans have this fear of Government and its experts like it was the only thing that could restrain their "freedom".

Professional LAW interpreters acting on evidence and arguments by investigators.

While those are all valid arguments in favor of juries, the crux of those arguments hinge on the assumption that a jury will be able to make sense of the professionals' expertise. Juror confusion is a major problem in common-law jurisdictions.

Dumbest post I've seen in a while. You are buying into the same dichotomy propounded by bona fide inbred rednecks

Okay?

Judges aren't detectives or forensic lab technicians, nigger. They only examine evidence secondhand.

>the jury that freed OJ

As an American lawyer I agree with this. The jury system is outdated and only ties civvies up. Plenty of countries with good justice don't waste people's time with it.

It has already been stated that juries likely are not the most efficient tool, but a time proven check against abuse of the judicial system.
Like a safety on a gun doesn't help you fire faster, but it's useful for not shooting your balls of.

>>trial by jury
>>a bunch of random people can estabilsh the truth better than professionals
problem?

>good justice

A bunch of random people is harder to bribe than one professional. Also they are less inclined to one single political opinion or world view.

peer review as it is, is basically a scam. It doesn't actually do what it pretends to all it does is bring $ for the journals that post the stuff

>Also they are less inclined to one single political opinion or world view.
incredibly ironic response to my post user

Ah, science is a scam.You really convinced me now user!

this is belied by 100% rulings of white southern juries against blacks in jim crow south and beyond.

That's not exactly a problem of juries but of the Apartheid regime that was in place in parts of the US with the resulting discrimination of minorities.

...

Jury selections are anything but random. Both sides (defense and prosecution) get a say in the jury's composition. Besides that, a person can easily eliminate themselves from the jury simply by saying that they wouldn't be able to be impartial enough. I eliminated myself from a jury selection process by saying that I'd be more likely to believe a police officer over another person. I knew that this would eliminate me, but I'd just gotten laid off the previous day and I really wasn't in the mood for this stuff.

it went beyond the formal laws but it was informal prejudice that pervaded white society. i think it just goes to show juries have as much to do with the spirit of society its people are drawn from and their social and class biases moreso than their actual ability to make impartial judgements as a group.

>peer review doesn't work
>because I say so!

Journals make money, oh wow. That totally makes review useless in science. What's wrong? Are you butthurt that your moms alternative medicine and wholefood retailer isn't doing well?

>draw only jurors from the white minority and discriminate all others
>hey guys, juries don't work and are prejudiced

I didn't save the stuff (including studies) talking about it so I'm not going to continue arguing about it.

>claim shit
>gets called
>no source
>lets quit

Yes...that's why in civil law, serious cases are usually judged by several judges.

post your peer reviewed study that shows how effective peer review is

Several judges is a legitimate alternative to a jury. Given several conditions, like the judges have to be voted into office and such.
It's also a resource question, what if you are a poorfag country and can't affort to pay so many judges, even 12 jurors come cheaper.

>claim shit
>gets called
>no source
>lets quit
>no wait, better you disprove my own bullshit for me

That's irrelevant. You are responsible person, doesn't mean everyone is.
It's better that a trained professional (or several professionals, murder and such serious cases are usually handled by a group of judges) judges facts and establishes guilt.
>easier to influence
Just no. Buying or intimidating or deluding a group of ordinary people is easier than buying or intimidating or deluding a group of judges.

But that's the thing. You think that in countries that don't have jury one judge rules alone in serious cases?
I don't know a single legal system that does that. It's always several judges, at least three.

Yes, a group of judges. But So far OP only suggested a single judge as a replacement for juries.

You can't "buy" a jury unless you somehow know who is going to be on the jury in advance, and the selection process pretty much makes that impossible.

What exactly is the "trained professional"'s training or expertise when it comes to dealing with facts (as opposed to dealing with issues of law). I've never come across any sort of legal training that goes in that direction, maybe you can enlighten me.

Not him, but you can do it over the life of the trial itself; they often last a while.

No form of human justice is idealistic. It doesn't matter who delivers it.(Although at least if it is 12 random members of society it decreases the chances of corruption)
How does taking a person rights to property away equate to physical harm?
No, sin is destruction and is remedied through hell fire, complete and total agony of the human body. Man, though believing in justice, does not have the right to wield it willy nilly in this system. Man will wield justice in the after life. Stay safe.

I didn't, I just thought people knew that several judges preside in serious cases.
You can buy them or influence them in the course of trial.
At the very least, someone who finished law school will be more intelligent and educated than an average person.
But also, if you specialize in some area of law (like criminal law), you also learn non-legal things related to it.
That's why some countries have specialized judges.

>At the very least, someone who finished law school will be more intelligent and educated than an average person.
Educated? Sure. Intelligent? I wonder. I've worked with some people who are unbearably dense, and some of them wore black robes.

>That's why some countries have specialized judges.
To determine issues of law, not issues of fact. That's why, for instance, while appellate level law often will muck all over the legal ramifications of admitting this or that piece of evidence, or a set of jury instructions, or a sentencing guideline. The idea that

>Oh hey you idiot jurors believed the wrong witness, retry now!
never happens as far as I'm aware of.

Sure, but in general, jurists will be more educated and intelligent than average person.
Judges also have experience that allows them to observe things in a detached manner. Jury, not so much.
I mean, I don't know much about American legal cases (civil lawfag), but someone like OJ would never escape justice if judges determined guilt.

>Sure, but in general, jurists will be more educated and intelligent than average person.
You've said this again, and come no closer to actually demonstrating it.

>Judges also have experience that allows them to observe things in a detached manner. Jury, not so much.
Detached does not necessarily mean accurate, and juries are choosen to be people who are detached from the issues at hand in a trial.

>, but someone like OJ would never escape justice if judges determined guilt.
Probably not, but "smart" judges have made plenty of outright bizarre decisions. United States vs O'Brien springs rather readily to mind, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/367/case.html

and if you want a tl;dr through the legalese:

>Law on the books making it illegal to burn, deface, or otherwise destroy a draft card.
>Mr. O'Brien does just this as part of an anti-vietnam war protest.
>Is not attempting to dodge the draft, no indication he was called up.
>He's just protesting the war.
>Defends himself on a constitutional issue that it is a form of political protest, "symbolic speech", which should be protected.
>SCOTUS comes up with a guideline in which whether an action can be banned by congress in issues such as this, it's literally called the O'Brien test these days and it's still used.
>The test, as follows is, for a law to be constitutional, it must "Further an important or substantial government interest, which is unrelated to the suppression of speech, and prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest.
>Congressional records were produced indicating that the primary motivation for the law was to stop "those peaceniks".
>O'Brien's conviction is upheld anyway.

This is literally the highest court in the land, with the most dedicated, vetted, and educated judges. And they made a shit ruling which is at least as ridiculous as the OJ Simpson one. I have no particular faith in actual factual application of judges.

>Not him, but you can do it over the life of the trial itself; they often last a while.

In any trial where something like that could occur, the jury would be sequestered. It's impossible.

The problem is that it opens the door to different ways of abusing the judicial system. A hybridization of the jury and tribunal systems would be best, where jurors are selected from a pool with the appropriate knowledge e.g. law professors, paralegals, etc.

Unless you're talking about electing judges for life you're just taking the problems of a jury system and multiplying them exponentially.

To be honest, it's a meaningless distinction anyway. Suppose you have the reach, means, determination, etc., to actually bribe the trial judge into taking your side in a case. You really think you can't get a win even with honest jurors? If you can control things like what evidence gets presented (Definitely a judge's call) you can win easily.

if they're drawn by lot then probabilistically there will always be a white majority jury even in cases with blacks. Also, rodney king comes to mind where they purposely conducted the trial outside of LA with an all white male jury and, surprise surprise, they acquitted the police (of course this goes into other questions, but the video shows extreme police brutality). To turn it around, too, you have OJ being acquitted by a black jury that didn't care about the evidence and wanted to get revenge for Rodney King ironically and in a quite twisted sense of fairness

>white minority
what

Fuck that. The law is supposed to reflect justice. Involving the average person in the process' decisions is how you get lynch mobs.

>Because your incorrect notions on what the function of a jury is alarms me in a professional sense.

I'd agree that it would be a cause for concern if I was from a place that used such a system. As it is I'm not.

>Exactly what field would that be? Who are these alleged experts? Legal training does not in fact even attempt to teach you what among multiple, possibly inconsistent sources of valid evidence are the more reliable and more relevant.
Wait, your judges aren't trained in those regards? Now I'm the one that's filled with alarm.

This.

True but they have a good and relevant foundation to base that on which cannot be said about the average person.

>Also they are less inclined to one single political opinion or world view.
Which they haven't been trained to ignore and focus on the facts at and relevant law at hand.

>Being this sort of retard

>Nobody owns justice, that's why I should own it
>t. expurt

jury of judges is better

>why do you need special qualifications for becoming a doctor

Nice strawman faggot!

>juries made of 12 faggots
>judges need to be elected thus making them liable to the same sort of corruption politics suffers from

The fuck is wrong with some countries?

I like this system, used in France:
>Three professional judges sit alongside six jurors in first instance proceedings or nine in appeal proceedings. Before 2012, there were nine or twelve jurors, but this was reduced to cut spending. A two-thirds majority is needed in order to convict the defendant. During these procedures, judges and jurors have equal positions on questions of fact, while judges decide on questions of procedure. Judges and jurors also have equal positions on sentencing.

I know what you mean, but it is doable with with a reasonable amount of effort. key ingredients is a large pool of senior law professionals, and ideally a stable multi party system (European type).
I get like 15 candidates from 6 different parties and 4 independent flavours, all with law degrees, several years of practice and clean repute, applying for 9 slots as judges at the local court, running for 6 year term. Vote is proporz, so the 9 guys with the most votes get the spot, ensuring that different political world views are represented in the court and that the delegation of judicial powers from the people to the court is direct, meaningful and democratic.

It works great, but I freely admit that I live in one of the most democratic societies ever and this will likely fail in less developed countries simply due the fact that the legal professionals wont have a background and worldview as diverse as the guys here and you'll either get a very narrow upper class/conservative focus or then partisan rifts within the court. Drawing by lot from the general population can ensure fairness if needed. Drawing from a small pool of professionals can give you a selection bias.

As stated in the first post, it depends a bit on your goals as a society.

My €0.02 on the US legal system is, that basically US citizens don't trust the central Government an awful lot and prefer to have some democratic safety fuses installed , archaic shit that is so simple that not even they can fuck it up, like 2nd amendment or trial by jury. Neither can or will I rate this as good or bad, from the view of an outside spectator it seems to work, not that well, but reliable like a shitty Russian car, dirty, noisy, thirsty and slow, but you can fix the fucker with a few hammer-strokes and a bit of wire and it just will keep running.
>personal opinion from a Yuropoor, no argument

Law is not justice. It is preffered to be justitious, but it's not an requirement. General purpose for law is to keep status quo/stability

T. Law student from Europe

>Judges/lawyers in general
>upper class
Lawyers and medics are prestigious, but they are definition of middle class

Borderline, I know what my dentist makes in a year and I see his trophy wives ass every day. Definitely bell end of the middle class.

Yeah, both of these profession can make 7 digit yearly salaries, and median is 6 digits long, but many lawyers for example work for like 90k a year. Especially if you're judicial or administrative lawyer. While corporate/tort/ some civil lawyers earn 300k a year on average. It's the same with medicine. Different specializations earns you differently.

You earn enough to live very comfortably, but not exactly rich.

You are retard

What the fuck are you on about mate?
t. Another european Law student

He's perhaps Slavic. My professor often told us that ''pravda'' (justice) and ''pravo'' (law) are not the same.

Miodrag?

>12 randomly selected guys are a good check to the power of Justice vested in only one man.
Those aren't the only options, you know. For instance, here in Finland we have one professional judge and two laymen, or three professional judges if the case is particularly complicated.

>You've said this again, and come no closer to actually demonstrating it.
Isn't law school one of the hardest to get into, in general terms?

Are your laymen politically appointed aswell?
t. Swede.

I have no practical experience in the matter, but apparently they're nominated by the city council, so yes.

The US elects the vast majority of it's judiciary and criminal prosecution. This creates a failure of a justice system that is forced to appeal to the public's desire for punitive action instead of focusing on ensuring justice is done and reforming those who are guilty. The end result is an electorate unhappy with the failings of the system, officials who are elected on platforms that will exacerbate the failings, and a sky-high recidivism rate.

How would you ensure that a democratized system of justice doesn't fall into the same trap of the American justice system?

>How would you ensure that a democratized system of justice doesn't fall into the same trap of the American justice system?
Not having a bi-partisan political system is a big help, having multiple judges for high profile cases is another.

I remember reading that for serious crimes courts in Ireland don't have a jury to prevent intimidation of jurors or their families, which is evidence that in some cases having a jury can make things worse.

Well that's just sad to read.
This thread reminds me that, in certain disputes for instance construction, a field expert is called and my engineer father once told me that technical terms were so complicated because otherwise a Judge might not call said expert and decide on its own.

Oh the things I have seen and living, witnessing the exercise of the law here in Italy. Like a family outright stealing a house by breaking and entering and getting told to pay their electric bill and that you have to sue them, it would be funny if I was not close to living under a bridge and contemplating suicide.

I'm fairly certain that legal candidates must be independent in order to prevent conflicts of interest. Either way, the number of judges is irrelevant to their job security hinging not on the real quality of their performance but on the public's perception of criminal trends during their tenure. How does one avoid that in a fixed term situation?

Ah, an interesting question related to the topic

>Why are lawyers typically excluded from juries?

law.stackexchange.com/questions/4559/why-are-lawyers-typically-excluded-from-juries

Also I wonder what this caused (article is 13 years old)
theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/17/politics.politicalnews
>The lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, yesterday told judges they must do their duty if called up for jury service, despite judicial concern that a new law removing the bar on judges and lawyers sitting on juries could prove unworkable.

I can only really speak for myself, but I would make a terrible juror as an attorney. I would be making a running tally of each party's procedural and evidential errors (and there are almost always such), and while I know it's not supposed to influence my decision, I'm sure it would subconsciously.

Plus, whenever someone tries to explain a point of law, I'd probably zone out. I know this shit, or at least I think I do.

The other thing I would be worried about, although I've never served on a jury (I only was called once, and I got kicked out the second they found out I was in law school), is contamination of other jurors. If it comes out that I'm a trial attorney, the rest of the jury is probably going to be giving my opinions extra weight, even if they're not actually grounded in my areas of expertise.