Trial by jury or by panel of judges?

[Homunclus]

Discuss

Personally, I tend to think a panel of judges would be more qualified to make this type of decisions than a random group of people.

 

[Aught3]

I chose jury. A panel of judges will see the law in black and white (even if it is a bad law) a jury is able to see the shades of gray.

 

[DeHerg]

I chose jury. A panel of judges will see the law in black and white (even if it is a bad law) a jury is able to see the shades of gray.

But isn,´t the Job of a Court to find out if a Law apply to the Case brought up? (without personal opinions(blind Justicia))

 

[Giliell]

Well, it's not that easy, I think.
Law is extremely complicated.
Judges know the laws and therefore are more qualified at making a judgement.
Laypeople are often moved by a very vague "sense of justice".
They are moved by compassion for one side or another quite uninterested in the law.

Oh, in Germany, for serious crimes, we have a system where a professional judge is advised by two lay judges.
That is kind of a compromise.

 

[WolfAU]

Would depend on the court case, and if I was guilty. If it was something nasty like rape/murder and I was innocent I'd go for Judge because I think the instinct of a Jury is to go "My God what a horrible Crime, PUNISH HIM" rather than weighing the evidence.

 

[stratos]

While I'm no expert on a jury based court system, american movies seem to indicate that a jury only decides if a accused is guilty of a certain list of crimes. The judge then decides the level of punishment I would imagine, and perhaps also generates the list of crimes. (although that might also be the job of the accuser)

Personally I think I prefer judges. If only because I wouldn't trust random people on the street to tie their shoelaces.

 

[Aught3]

But isn,´t the Job of a Court to find out if a Law apply to the Case brought up? (without personal opinions(blind Justicia))

Deciding whether a law applies is the job of a judge, deciding on the facts of the case is done by a jury. If I was on trial I would not want the same person who answers the questions of law deciding on the points of fact in my case. Personal opinions should be removed during voir dire, but there are also 12 people on a jury to try and even out any bias that gets through.

 

[Giliell]

]Deciding whether a law applies is the job of a judge, deciding on the facts of the case is done by a jury. If I was on trial I would not want the same person who answers the questions of law deciding on the points of fact in my case. Personal opinions should be removed during voir dire, but there are also 12 people on a jury to try and even out any bias that gets through.

Well, but that's problem: There are things where everyone is biased. Take for example child abuse. Nodody wants to see a pedophile walk free (except other pedophiles). So the accused has a huge bias against him. Or say a father shoots the alleged rapist of his child. It has happened with a jury that such people who disregard the judical system and go out to lynch people have walked free because for a jury, that's "understandable".
I want neither. I don't want innocent people locked away just in case they might have commited a crime (and the real culprit walk away) and I don't want people who shoot others in cold blood, no matter how strongly they feel that to be right to walk free.
And I'ev seen some amazing ruling from judges here, who, in spite of public pressure, in spite of the opinion of "the people" stuck to the law.

 

[Aught3]

So the reason we shouldn't have jury trials is that everyone has bias but we should instead have bench trials because judges don't have bias?

The idea of a jury trial is to bring a cross section of the community into the courtroom. They look with fresh eyes at the facts of the case and aren't burdened by bad laws, a need to explain their decision, or (once the trial starts) outside media coverage. Additionally, they aren't jaded by seeing the same types of criminals come to stand in the dock everyday.

 

[Marcus]

I chose "other" because it depends on the case. Juries are made up of ordinary people who have not been able to come up with a way to avoid jury service and, therefore, are generally poorly educated compared to the officers of the court. In cases where the duty of the jury is to weigh up evidence on a crime like assault or burglary, this isn't generally a problem. On other crimes - notably ones involving complex fraud or computer related crimes - there is a strong case already being made that the jury should be replaced by a panel of people who have enough understanding of finance, computing or whatever to follow what the person is accused of doing, let alone the evidence.

 

[Homunclus]

So the reason we shouldn't have jury trials is that everyone has bias but we should instead have bench trials because judges don't have bias?

More like they would be more able to deal with their bias, instead of your average citizen who lets himself be guided by his bias alone.

Besides, we are talking about more than one judge (at least three), which also helps to filter out any bias they might have

The idea of a jury trial is to bring a cross section of the community into the courtroom.

I don't see why the community should have a place on a court of all places...

aren't burdened by bad laws, a need to explain their decision

If a law is bad you change it. You don't wait for a random group of people to decide to ignore it. And is the need to explain decisions bad?

Additionally, they aren't jaded by seeing the same types of criminals come to stand in the dock everyday.

Maybe not. But they do listen to the news, and hear cases of criminals who walk free and a number of other things. They may very well carry their own burdens

 

[Giliell]

So the reason we shouldn't have jury trials is that everyone has bias but we should instead have bench trials because judges don't have bias?

No, but they are professionals and professionals are called professionals because they behave professionally.
I won't say that it always works like this, but a good judge doesn't take up a case they feel they can't handle without bias. They are much more aware of their own bisases than the average citizen (who will usually deny having any, most of the time in sentences followed by "but").

Would you have liked to have a jury in non-criminal cases like Kitzmiller vs. Dover? Take a look at the average American citizen and guess what the ruling on ID might have been then. It's not any different in criminal cases.

 

[scalyblue]

Does anybody really like the idea of the fate of your future depending on twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty?

 

[Zylstra]

A panel of judges who are elected every so many years after completing a college educating them in the law and the history and theory of law

 

[Aught3]

I don't have time to reply to everyone this morning but this:

A panel of judges who are elected every so many years after completing a college educating them in the law and the history and theory of law

Is the worst way to do it. If their job is dependent on getting elected every so-many years there will be a huge temptation to bow to community pressure to convict rapists, pedophiles, and murderers when the community haven't even heard the facts of the case. Bring the community into the courtroom to see justice being done and you solve this problem.

 

[Zylstra]

Yes, but I plan to be the one buying the election, so the courts would b my puppets


Kinda like how Congress works

 

[Aught3]

More like they would be more able to deal with their bias, instead of your average citizen who lets himself be guided by his bias alone. Besides, we are talking about more than one judge (at least three), which also helps to filter out any bias they might have

and we're talking about 12 members of the public who are subjected to voir dire, peremptory challenges, and detailed instructions from a judge to ignore bias, find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom.

I don't see why the community should have a place on a court of all places...

I think the community has a place in all public institutions including the court. Having a jury is a democratic process, it allows people to see justice being done, assists in judgments being accepted as they are handed down by a group of your peers, and allow the community to take an active role in the justice process.

If a law is bad you change it. You don't wait for a random group of people to decide to ignore it. And is the need to explain decisions bad?

While the bad law is on the books you need a system that is able to overcome it, there are plenty of examples of laws that just stay because it's too much effort to get rid of them - blasphemy laws for example. Once in a courtroom the judge should be applying the law even if it is wrong.

Maybe not. But they do listen to the news, and hear cases of criminals who walk free and a number of other things. They may very well carry their own burdens

Again, 12 people and opportunity for the opposing lawyers to remove bias.

I won't say that it always works like this, but a good judge doesn't take up a case they feel they can't handle without bias.

My problem is not with good judges but with bad ones and, as you said, it doesn't always work out right.

Would you have liked to have a jury in non-criminal cases like Kitzmiller vs. Dover? Take a look at the average American citizen and guess what the ruling on ID might have been then. It's not any different in criminal cases.

Like you mention it was a bench trial as the plaintiffs were seeking an injunction and the judge had to rule on constitutional grounds. If it had been a criminal trial I would think there would have been a 50/50 split on those who believed in creationism vs. evolution. The scientists in that trial did a great job of explaining evolution, the school board members were caught lying, and the creationists didn't even show up - I think a jury would have made the right decision.

Does anybody really like the idea of the fate of your future depending on twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Perhaps I have too high an opinion of my fellow citizens?

 

[Giliell]

and we're talking about 12 members of the public who are subjected to voir dire, peremptory challenges, and detailed instructions from a judge to ignore bias, find the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Yes, and that surely works, does it?

I think the community has a place in all public institutions including the court. Having a jury is a democratic process, it allows people to see justice being done, assists in judgments being accepted as they are handed down by a group of your peers, and allow the community to take an active role in the justice process.

The community should have a right to witness a process. But why I should give one of the most important tasks in a functioning society to a group of total amateurs is beyond me.

Again, 12 people and opportunity for the opposing lawyers to remove bias.

So it's down to which lawyer is better in persuading people.

My problem is not with good judges but with bad ones and, as you said, it doesn't always work out right.

No, but then I can always ask for a change of judges if any bias becomes obvious during the trial. That's much harder to do with a jury.

]Like you mention it was a bench trial as the plaintiffs were seeking an injunction and the judge had to rule on constitutional grounds. If it had been a criminal trial I would think there would have been a 50/50 split on those who believed in creationism vs. evolution. The scientists in that trial did a great job of explaining evolution, the school board members were caught lying, and the creationists didn't even show up - I think a jury would have made the right decision.

Hmmm, how many people from the general public do think understood the scientific evidence? And those who believe, as it has been shown over and over again, don't care about evidence.

No, I stay with my opinion. I don't want a bunch of random people who have little knowledge of the judicial system and the laws to decide such important questions that can ruin lives.
Especially not in cases where emotions are running high.

 

[Squawk]

Let me put it this way.

If I am ever accused of a crime of which I am innocent I want the only person making any decision to be a judge.

If I am ever guilty of a crime that goes to trial I want a jury.

 

[Nogre]

My biggest problem with juries is that they're more often than not they're minipulated by prosecutors, not simply with emotions, but the actual people who SIT are minipulated. My mom merely worked in a hospital; she wasn't even a doctor or anything, and she was NEVER called to be on juries. Similarly, anyone even remotely involved in the field of medicine is rejected as a possible candidate. My dad is an engineer, and has been called once within memory. Attorneys simply don't want people with any idea of medicine, law, or even just with basic thinking abilities and a technical college degree sitting on a jury, and them being able to minipulate that (at least here in the U.S.) is a problem.

If the jury was truly made up of a mix of people, NOT just a group of people selected because they're ignorant and easily persuaded by a lawyer, then it would be better. If people weren't allowed to get out of jury duty, you also eliminate another way juries are skewed. Then, the case for juries over a panel of judges is much better. It's even better if people overall were more intelligent... Unfortunately, that's not the society we live in...

A panel of judges has its own problems, though, particularly in how they're chosen. If they're elected, you have that form of corruption (they judge to be re-elected, not to be lawful and truthful), and if they're appointed, you still have the same problem. How this might be solved, I don't know.

I'm not sure which to choose...it depends too much on the smaller details. Perhaps a mix of both is best, as some people have already said.