Trial by Jury

[Vivo]

In our country, we don't practice trial by jury. It is the judge who decides and deliver justice. It's been this for years and just works fine. Trial by jury is practiced in the U.S. and I don't know if this is more effective. Juries are not totally familiar with the law and its jurisprudence and just studies/decides cases based on deliberations, testimonies, rebuttals, arguments, etc. Anybody want to comment? 

[streido]

Trial by jury is the only fair way to run it really, a single judge can have a bad day or take a dislike to someone for any reason, at least with a jury we have a reasonable chance of a fair and impartial trial by our peers. Most judges are out of touch with how "normal" folk like us live anyway so better having someone who understands you to decide your guilt or innocence.

I did jury service twice so far on 2 seperate trials and from what i saw the system works just fine here in Scotland, wouldnt change it at all.

Juries dont need to know every aspect of the law, or any of the law, the judge deals with the legalities and will advise the jury on points of law when required.

[axy]

There are two opposed judicial systems, based on Roman - civil law (Europe, most of Asia, S. America, good part of Africa) and common law (English law).
Basic difference is that in Roman law derived systems, case law is not a source of law. You cannot base decisions on other verdicts.

Also, we do not have jury here, but in some case, we have a few judges, some of them being laymen, independently overseeing the work of the judge in session (and in fact, sitting behind/above him). It is a form or citizens' control of the judicial branch. In higher instances there is also a possibility of several judges being in charge of one case.

[08087]

In the US we have both Jury and Judge or "Bench trials". It is widly thought that if you are innocent you ask for a Bench trial as the Judge will recognize your innocet from the start. If your guilty go for the jury trial. Jury's can be fooled and you only need ot have 1 member hold out to get you off the hook. Also Juries can be swayed by emotion.

The Jury trial saves you from being railroaded by the state as they often will look for an easy target, someone that is poor, that has no family to stand up for them and they make the evidence fit the crime.

[Vivo]

three very comprehensive replies... nice

[ScooterWolf]

In the US (as I'm sure in many other countries) there are two kinds of juries. One, a Grand Jury that hears the evidence and testimonies connected to a case and decides if there is enough evidence to have it go to trial. The second kind is a Petit Jury, that actually sits in on a case to hear the arguments from both the Prosecutor and the Defense, and decides beyond a Reasonable Doubt if a person, or party is innocent or guilt.

A few years ago I served on a grand jury for four months in the city of Camden, NJ. Camden, at one point, was the most violent city in the US in the categories of murder, rape, burglary and theft. I actually had just finished a short documentary on Camden about my daily commute through the city.

Believe it or not my grand jury tenure was a great experience as I learned a lot about our legal system, the integrity of the undercover police officers working in Camden and the extend of the drug problems facing our country. it was an eye opener.

-Wolf