Exactly. In general I don’t think there is a “best” system, just different ones.
The US system though is flawed IMO for the reasons @anon50609448 and you stated.
Again, I can’t speak to whether this is generally true in Canada or not, but I can say that the vast majority of criminal lawyers in the US would advise clients to opt for a jury trial. Getting one person out of 12 to have reasonable doubt is generally (though not always) a better proposition than convincing one out of one. That said, in complicated cases where the defendant has a very compelling legal argument depending on a rather sophisticated interpretation of the law, a bench trial might be the better option, but it’s far from the norm in the US.
Let’s break this down a bit because several things are being conflated. The original issue, I believe, was one of jury systems vs. non-jury systems, and it has become a bit tangled with civil law vs. common law systems, which is not really the same question. So, in terms of the original question, when you point to a system that produces “fairer results,” which non-jury system are you referring to?
Please don’t get me wrong, though; our criminal justice system in the US has very serious flaws, in theory and in practice, and in no way am I arguing that it is a shining beacon of fairness in all respects. I do think, though, that a jury system is a good bedrock upon which to base a fair system, and I think it can provide a good check on state overreach.
1 Like
I don’t see how to disentangle the question of jury trial from the question of other aspects of the legal system. A legal system that doesn’t use jury trials will be different in other regards from the American system.
There are countries that don’t use or make very limited use of jury trials. America has, to me, the most unfair justice system in the developed world. I think to argue that point one would have to defend the incarceration rate as a reasonable product of a reasonable justice system. I don’t think that’s plausible.
But to your point that the idea of a jury trial is a good bedrock upon which to base a fair system, I don’t really disagree. On the point that it can provide a good check on state overreach, however, I do disagree. I think America shows just how limited a check on state overreach it is. You can circumvent it by bullying nearly all criminal defendants into guilty pleas, for one thing.
I do think there is a flaw with the idea of jury trials in themselves though. It’s the idea that it is the job of the prosecutor to convict you and your job to defend yourself and that the jury will somehow adjudicate that fairly. I don’t like the concept of a trial as a contest. I feel like it puts the prosecutor (who represents the people) in a position of trying to convict rather than trying to get the truth.
2 Likes
Well there we are.
Certainly, prosecutors base their election campaigns on that idea!
And the public love it. Then again, the public think that being a defense attorney for a guilty client is somehow unethical. (As long as we have an adversarial system, we owe all defendants, guilty or innocent, a zealous defense!)
At the root is a public belief that the legal system is not to be trusted. Joe Sixpack believes he just knows who’s guilty, and demands that prosecutors bring them in, defenders refrain from defending them, and judges conduct manifestly unfair trials. You hear language like, “fair trial? He gave up his right to a fair trial when he [insert crime here].” (Uhm, which part of “inalienable” didn’t you understand?) Paraphrasing Alan Dershowitz: “Some crimes are so heinous that some people would not regard even innocence as a defense.”
The problem is in the culture, not in its legal system.
2 Likes
Oh good lord! Elected prosecutors is so awful.
I guess I feel like the legal system and the culture have interconnections. People simultaneously hold the ideas that:
- Trials are just the last obstacle the justice system needs to overcome to get the criminals - they are a chance to get away with it.
- The state needs to be heavily restricted or it will use its powers to falsely accuse and imprison people left and right.
Those two ideas have a common underlying theme: trials are about good vs. evil. I think having an adversarial system encourages us to think that way.
But as a practical question should America be trying to get rid of jury trials and replace them with some other system? Hell no. No country will ever run short enough on real problems that it should spend it’s time pursuing a philosophical utopia.
1 Like
and functions mostly as a punishment for registering to vote.
As someone who has experienced this, you don’t have to be registered to vote to get called to jury duty. They pull their potential summons list from many places would be my guess.
1 Like
My guess is that the combination of adversarial system combined with elected judges and prosecutors isn’t exactly the best idea and probably one of the reasons why the US-American system is in it’s current state.
1 Like
It’s still a cultural issue. The electorate thinks that the important criterion for the judges and prosecutors is that they be ‘tough’, not ‘fair.’ You actually have the same problem in those American jurisdictions where these officers are appointed: the executive is expected to appoint, and the legislature to confirm, tough ones rather than fair ones.
Members of the judiciary who serve during good behaviour (e.g. Article III judges) often surprisingly rediscover their conscience once in office - because they are a coëqual branch of government, not directly responsible to the will of the mob. (The judiciary appears to be one place where democracy does not quite work - the plebes are more than willing to vote themselves a tyranny.)
1 Like
Leaving out the word “about” is a weasel omission, and you should know that.
It’s not accepted wisdom in Canada. The question of whether you want a judge or a jury turns on a few factors, there is no answer that is always correct.
Hanging your defense on the word “about” is also pretty weasely 
Do you actually have an alternative system in mind that you think is fairer?
1 Like
The point I was trying to make that it’s a pretty good system, and should be upheld by people called to serve so that can function as intended- without saying that it’s the absolute best, realizing that there are other viable ways of reaching justice. Reasonable arguments can be made for other systems. I think this one is quite good, realizing that trials will never achieve perfect results in any system.
All I was defending against was a troll who tried to twist “about the fairest” into some kind of jingoistic claim of superiority for the american justice system. Then I made the mistake of responding to him, which is how we eventually got to this idiotic place.
3 Likes
When I was in grad school the tip I got was to pretend you’re Niles Crane. Be earnest. Not in a racist or fascist way but just like “Oh yes, I can let my professors know I’ve been selected to serve, I assume the court can give me some sort of documentation” and just purposefully use as many GRE words as possible. Lawyers hate intelligent jurors.
When I got called pretty much all I had to do was state my occupation was “research assistant” and they were like “no bueno”
2 Likes
In what way is a single person accusing someone of a crime, deciding the accused is guilty without trial, and sentencing them considered a legitimate court action? Why do we allow some charges to sidestep our legal right to a trail? How can the accuser also be the judge?
Finally, how can one be said to have the benefit of a jury of their peers when anyone familiar with jury nullification is denied the ability to serve as a juror? Jury nullification is a legitimate act and one that eventually ended prohibition.
1 Like
Are you talking about contempt of court? That’s a very special case that is carved out because otherwise things would be crazy. Judges need to be able to ensure that trials actually happen. Otherwise constant, intentional disruption would be a viable strategy to prevent trials and convictions.
Jury nullification is a subversion of the law. Jurors have a duty to render the verdict that they actually think is the right verdict. That said, I totally support jury nullification. But I support it the way I support many illegal protests. You do it because it subverts the law, because you really believe that the law needs subverting.
5 Likes
Or it’s simply upholding justice in the face of an unjust law.
How does your right to a trial and ensuring your accuser is not your judge prevent trials from happening? How does allowing your accuser serve as your judge serve justice? And finally, under what authority is the court empowered to deny you your rights under the law?
Yeah, if the law is unjust then disobeying the law may be just, but it would still be illegal.
Those are very abstract questions. Without contempt of court the court would simply have no power. If a judge makes a ruling and you simply refuse to obey it, the judge needs to be able to impose some sort of remedy for that.
Judges are allowed to order you to show up in court. If you don’t show up in court, how could setting a new court date and telling you to show up for that possibly be a remedy for that?
Judges can order you to pay damages in civil cases. If you don’t, why would you be entitled to a new day in court? You had your day in court.
Plus, this guy who stood up and yelled “guilty” to get out of jury duty was intentionally messing with someone else’s right to a fair trial. What about that person? How do we protect fair trials if people can walk into court and mess with trial proceedings and the only remedy is to give them a “fair trial” which can be messed with in exactly the same way?
2 Likes
Hugo Black would agree with you, but that’s not the law of the land.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
