SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
dalek (15489)
It's time for jury trials to be abolished in the US. I'm not writing this because of any current or recent events. It's just an important issue to me.
Take a look at the recent Senate impeachment trials. The Senate isn't like a jury; it is a jury, with the powers that every other jury is supposed to have. They can ask questions, call witnesses, decide what is impeachable, and dismiss charges as they see fit. These powers are the reason the Constitution guarantees the right to jury trials in criminal cases.
Historically, juries decided both facts and law. Although the prosecution (or the plaintiff) and the defense presented their cases, juries could ask questions and summon witnesses to testify for the purpose of determining the truth. They also had the power to not uphold laws that they deemed unjust or overly harsh. Unfortunately, juries no longer really determine facts or law. Instead, they are instructed to follow the judge's instructions about how to apply the law, and weigh the cases presented by the prosecution (or plaintiff) and the defense. Juries have already been stripped of nearly all of the powers that made them important enough to be required in the Bill of Rights.
Cases often involve complex issues of law, technology, and forensic science. Many jurors lack the background to make informed decisions about such matters, and plenty of lawyers prefer it this way. Instead, cases are influenced heavily by emotion and by how the two sides conduct and present themselves. How can juries determine the facts when they may not understand the evidence or have access to all of the evidence?
In some cases, jurors are conscripted into serving at trials where their verdict could potentially place them and their families at risk of retaliation. While I would prefer that nobody face this, at least judges willingly choose their profession. It is particularly unfair and unjust to force jurors into such risks.
Although jury nullification is possible, judges and lawyers seriously frown upon the practice and try hard to prevent it. No juror can be punished for the verdict they reach, meaning that a jury can simply refuse to convict if they decide a law is unjust. It's an important power that juries still technically have, but jurors who indicate they are willing to nullify laws can expect to be dismissed. There are multiple instances of people standing outside courthouses, informing people of the power of jury nullification, and being charged with jury tampering. Although people charged in that manner have generally been acquitted, it has taken years for this to happen in some instances.
I firmly believe that justice would be better served if jury trials were abolished. Instead of paying juries below minimum wage to not really decide either facts or law, let cases be decided by panels of judges who understand the law better and are expected to inform themselves about complex issues of science and technology. Either restore the power of juries or eliminate jury trials altogether. Because the former seems extremely unlikely, it is time to join many other countries in abolishing juries completely.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @07:41AM
... compelling.
The only thing that still holds some value in trial by jury is jury nullification, a thing that let some people throw a wrench in the political compromises that shaped the laws. Happens too rarely and it can cut both ways (i.e. nullify an aspect of the law that's beneficial).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @08:12AM (1 child)
This is the problem, not the jury system itself. In American, half of the peers are batshit crazy, and it is in the interest of one side, or the other, to eliminate any rational person from a jury. Last time I got called in, I said "I teach ethics". One lawyer called for a privileged dismissal. Of course, doesn't help when people like me are so glad to be dismissed. Did not look like an interesting case, however.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @07:52PM
I'm going to nitpick a little bit here. The Sixth Amendment says:
Notice it doesn't say anything about a jury of "peers". That comes from the Magna Carta; apparently, the nobles of the day didn't want to be judged by the king or those pesky peasants. On the other hand, I do think you have an important point when you say:
I agree that this is the crux of the problem. What we really need is a better informed population that isn't "batshit crazy".
Indeed. Can we really blame the process when the lawyers are afraid to try a case where there might be a juror in the bunch who might dare to think for themselves? In the same way, can we really be surprised with the miscarriage(s) of justice when people who are qualified to hear and judge the case are "glad" to be dismissed because they feel like the process is a waste of their precious time? Remember, you get the government you are willing to work for and serving on a jury is one of the responsibilities of a citizen of this country.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @02:05PM (2 children)
Getting 12 people to call you guilty can be difficult if the facts are favorable to you. But it's not difficult to find judges that are misinformed about the law, or merely don't like you.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:01PM (1 child)
12 randos vs. 1 egomaniac.....
It's a tough choice but I guess I'm glad you get to pick your poison at trial?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:09PM
The choice is yours, and it might benefit you to pick the judge or jury based on the circumstances.
If all else fails, you can pull a Slobodan Praljak.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @02:13PM (2 children)
Jury restoration.
To remove trial by jury, you'd need to amend the constitution.
It's both easier, and a more productive topic, to allow for jury reform; for example consider putting the right of juries to pose their own questions into the law. That would be a start, and an important one.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @04:42PM (1 child)
Eliminating the practice of only allowing approved defences is another important one. Limiting what the prosecution brings up is a good thing, but forbidding (for example) the defendant in a drug possession case from telling the jury that they have a prescription (yes, this happens) is a blatant violation of the right to a jury trial.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2022, @05:38PM
Yeah, that's definitely fucked! With a healthy double plus good dystopian "right" to defend themselves to a jury of their peers but not being allowed to actually say their defense.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:03PM
I understand the complaints for sure. I just can't think of any system that would be meaningfully better than what we've got.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:06PM (14 children)
Plea deals seem like a worse problem to me anyway. I'm with khallow on that one.
Of course, that would actually increase the amount of juries in all likelihood....
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @03:38PM (6 children)
Exactly. Plea deals are about clearing the dockets of already over-burdened court schedules. The idea is to get defendants to plea to lesser offenses that the DA is almost sure to win in the hopes of the defendant missing out on getting convicted of an offense with a potentially much longer jail sentence. It saves the courts and the DA from putting in effort on cases that would take up an inordinate amount of time and resources. Of course, that is the theory. How it works out in actual practice may be...somewhat more complicated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @04:49PM (5 children)
How it happens in practice is actually very simple: The DA overcharges with things they know would never stand up in court if the defendant could afford a lawyer, and (assuming they even get one) the overworked public defender (who only has around five minutes to review the case and meet their client) advises their client to take the plea because that's all they can really offer these days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @08:04PM (4 children)
And this is just plain bullshit. Any public defender, even a terribly overworked one, can slice through that ploy in nanoseconds. They just have to ask the DA, "what evidence do you have?" If the DA says "we don't have the evidence yet, but we will soon", the public defender can simply respond, "call my client back in when you have some evidence, we're leaving now".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2022, @11:12PM (2 children)
Sure, they can, but will they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2022, @04:13PM (1 child)
Well, they better or they run the risk of being disbarred. See, even though we frequently like to mock lawyers in this country, they are bound by a code of ethics. And according to that code of ethics they are supposed to represent and advise in their client's best interest. Yes, even if they are "overworked".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 18 2022, @05:36AM
Well, I suggest you quantify that risk. And when you realize it is absurdly low, you come back to us with a better argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2022, @06:27PM
What's bullshit is that over-charging a standard practice intimidation technique. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dalek on Friday June 17 2022, @02:09AM (6 children)
I appreciate the comments on this journal, including those that disagree with me. I've been reading and modding up lots of posts, including many people who don't agree.
The AC who replied above is correct that plea bargains are becoming more common because they reduce the burden on the court system. However, they are also closely linked to the problems with juries.
If you're an innocent person who's been charged with a crime, you might face two choices. One is to plead guilty to a lesser charge with a much lower sentence while the other would be to go to trial. If we had a properly functioning jury system, the innocent person should want to go to trial every time. They should have confidence that the jury would be able to determine the truth and, therefore, vote to acquit. At a minimum, people believe that there is significant uncertainty in the outcome of a trial by jury, meaning that there's a non-negligible chance of an innocent person being convicted of the original charge. If that probability is high enough and the difference in sentences large enough, pleading guilty might on average result in a more lenient penalty than going to trial. The perceived risk of going to trial is a significant factor in innocent people pleading guilty. Here's an article discussing the problem and why it became even worse during the pandemic: https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pushed-defendants-to-plead-guilty-more-often-including-innocent-people-pleading-to-crimes-they-didnt-commit-165056 [theconversation.com].
If the risk of an innocent person being wrongly convicted by a jury was significantly lower, if defendants had more confidence that juries would be able to find the truth, fewer innocent people would plead guilty. I believe that fixing the plea bargain problem also requires fixing the problems with juries.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 17 2022, @12:22PM (4 children)
The problem here is that you aren't proposing a mechanism with a better truth seeking ability. You replace a jury of twelve with a jury of one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2022, @04:29PM
I've already proposed a mechanism with a "better truth seeking ability" further up in the comments. We need a better-informed public. Right now, we have people all over this country that believe all sorts of weird shit. And let's not kid ourselves: another significant problem is that partisanship too frequently gets in the way of people making rational decisions. COVID vaccines are DANGEROUS!!! The election was "stolen" from Donald Trump! What happened on January 6, 2021 was just a "tourist" visit that got a little out of hand. These two problems cause way too many people to make decisions based on pure raw emotion rather than a dispassionate view of the facts.
(Score: 2) by dalek on Monday June 20 2022, @02:14AM (2 children)
I wouldn't propose that people be tried before a single judge, particularly for serious crimes or civil suits seeking large damages. Instead, I believe those should be tried before panels of judges, each with at least three judges. The panels get rotated so that judges don't always work on a panel with the same judges. The judges would write an explanation of their ruling, justifying the reasoning behind their decisions. If a ruling is based on flimsy logic, that would be justification for appealing it. I believe that it would provide greater transparency than the current situation where there may never be any insight into a jury's deliberations. I recognize that there are flaws in both systems, but I believe that what I'm proposing is less flawed.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Monday June 20 2022, @12:00PM
That's basically the Norwegian judicial system:
District court (Norway) [wikipedia.org]
You'd have to ask a Norwegian with experience of the operations of the system whether it works, and is just, fair and timely.
See also Judiciary of Norway [wikipedia.org]
I have no idea whether it's a good system, but I simply offer it as an example of doing things differently in a country generally regarded as civilized.
In England & Wales, many civil and criminal cases are heard in Magistrates Courts [wikipedia.org] without juries, but they have a limited sentencing power, so serious cases are heard in a Crown Court with a jury. In some, but not all, cases defendants can choose for their case to be heard in a Crown Court in front of a jury rather than a Magistrates court without one.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:40PM
Dalek I wouldn't propose trying to get the best of APK ever again with you losing to APK as always https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:55PM
Dalek I appreciate you losing to APK as always https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers! You falsely accused APK of being wrong hosts won't work against Symbiote. They do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday June 16 2022, @11:17PM (10 children)
Moving on, we already have an example where a judge withholds [soylentnews.org] material evidence from a jury.
And jury nullification was mentioned. A judge can't pull that off.
(Score: 0, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Thursday June 16 2022, @11:44PM
This can be avoided by only appointing Judges from the morally and intellectually superior left. [wikipedia.org] Noted that TFJ does mention a panel of judges. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2022, @01:19AM (7 children)
Court of appeals?
Not only effective in one case, but if a judge pulls nasty buggers too many times, it is bound to become quite visible.
And a jury system functioning as it is now won't spare you of the troubles either.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 17 2022, @02:45AM
How many bad trials before that happens?
Except, of course, the judge is not also the jury.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 17 2022, @03:25PM (5 children)
Once you're in the court of appeals you are no longer presumed innocent. And, evidence of innocence isn't enough to get you cleared! [yahoo.com] You need to also prove that the court fucked up in some additional way during the process.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2022, @04:05PM (4 children)
I think you misunderstand what an appellate court is for. There is a distinction between trying the facts and trying the legal process used in the original court case. The facts are tried in the original case. The appellate court(s) review the legal process used in the original court case. Appellate courts do not try the facts of the case. The questions typically considered in an appellate court: Did the judge properly instruct the jury before they were sent for deliberation? Did the judge improperly exclude exculpatory evidence? Was the sentence decided by the judge (or the jury) proportionate to the crime? Sometimes, the appellate court can decide that the legal process in the original case was so improper that a new trial needs to be made, in which case the facts and the law can be decided again.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday June 18 2022, @05:42AM (2 children)
Sounds to me like the appellate court was oversold a few posts back.
With a jury trial thrown out, "a new trial" means a new jury, but the same judge. It takes a lot more to get rid of a bad judge than a bad jury.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2022, @09:06PM (1 child)
You can get a new judge but it typically requires that they recuse themselves, a rather high bar to clear. Maybe what you are really miffed about is that you aren't allowed to go judge shopping until you get the verdict you prefer? That too is an abuse of the legal system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 19 2022, @11:15PM
Maybe you should find a better class of question? But then again, it's probably likely that everyone who disagrees with me on anything probably does so through some grievous fault of theirs. Couldn't possibly be that they have a legitimate reason for disagreement, right?
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday June 22 2022, @07:30AM
In England & Wales, appellate courts can reopen cases if evidence appears that was not available to the original court case e.g. from advances in DNA testing and other forensic science, so they are not solely devoted to checking the legal processes of the original case.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday June 22 2022, @07:37AM
An appeal court. But that requires resources the defendant might not have.
Another problem with judge-only trials, apart from lack of jury nullification, is in the USA, judges are (mostly) elected (which is unusual compared to other countries' judicial systems) , so tend to be more political than British judges.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/book-review/in-new-book-shugerman-explores-the-history-of-judicial-selection-in-the-u-s/ [harvard.edu]
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states [ballotpedia.org]