How would you interpret the importance of a petit jury in a trial?
Petit juries are what distinguishes the legal system of the United States from many, if not most, of the the world’s legal systems. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights gives U.S. citizens the right to be judged by their peers in matters of civil controversy or criminal charges, including the right to a speedy trial in criminal matters.There are actually three separate provisions of the U.S. Constitution that provide for the right to a trial by jury.Article III, Section 2: “The trial of all crimes shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where said crimes have been committed.”The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state where the crimes have been committed.”The Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “In all suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined by an court of the United States.”Few, if any, other countries give their citizens all of the rights of trial provided by the U.S. Constitution. Because we U.S. citizens are not generally aware of how few rights to trial are given elsewhere, we take them for granted; but it cannot be overstated how important petit juries are and have been in the evolution of our country. Petit juries allow the meek to battle the mighty over controversies and to have fellow citizens from their own venues sit in judgment of the facts, whether in civil matters or in fighting for one’s own freedom against a criminal charge.The right to a trial by jury is arguably the single most important right of an American.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a jury vs. having a judge decide a court case?
A judge is an expert, both in the law and in working out the truth. They have years of training and experience. Juries are amateurs. They usually have no training or experience. That means a judge is more likely to be capable of reaching the correct verdict.The downside to judges is that they can have a very narrow viewpoint and can be out of touch with reality since they live in a very different world to that of most of the people appearing before them (both as defendants and victims). A jury has people from a range of backgrounds so is more likely to understand things from the defendant's/victim's perspective.Judges are also at far greater risk of becoming corrupt or being bribed or coerced. A juror is only doing the job for a couple of weeks, which isn't generally long enough to get into those kind of problems.
Why is the jury system rarely used anymore?
In Canada, an accused is entitled to a jury trial only if facing a maximum sentence of 5 years or more. There are many offences that don’t qualify.Even if the accused could have a jury, many choose not to for various reasons, including:Juries tend to be unpredictable.Juries consist of lay people whose only prior knowledge of the law likely comes from (wildly inaccurate) television police / legal dramas.By comparison, judges are legal professionals with significant experience. In some courts, judges are criminal law experts who have spent their entire legal career in that field.Judges are required to provide reasons for their decisions, which may provide fodder for an appeal. Juries don’t give reasons (and in Canada aren’t allowed to ever discuss their deliberations outside the jury room), so one has no idea how or why they made their decision.
If you were accused of a crime and had a choice: would you want the verdict decided by a judge or a jury?
There’s an old saying that when you have the law on your side, argue the law, if you have facts, argue the facts, if you have neither, pound on the table.I’d add to that, argue the emotion.If it’s law, I’d go with a judge. They’re ideally more trained in the nuances and hopefully can understand the legal points my competent lawyer is using to argue for a not-guilty verdict.If it’s facts, it depends. Arguably, in the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution had the facts, and still lost the case. They overcomplicated it for the jury. So, I might go with a jury in that case and hope that there’s enough question about the facts they can’t find “beyond a reasonable doubt.”If I have neither, I want a jury. I want to appeal to their emotion.