Thus is something I dont see discussed a lot, but I find somewhat interesting (as someone who isnt a lawyer).
Most of the world uses trial by judge, while British derived common law systems use trial by jury. I can see pros and cons in both systems but I wouldn’t mind hearing from other non-liberals on the subject
My instinct, which I will admit I don’t have a strong enough grasp on in historical detail, is that what matters most is: 1) Who the justice system serves (ex: China’s serving the working class vs. US’s serving the capitalist) and 2) To what extent the people involved in the process are in community with the offender. So like, if it’s somebody you’ve never met you’re weighing in on the fate of, that might sound “impartial” on paper, but it also means you have less reason to care about what happens to them and the broader impact it may have on your local community (if you even have something that can be called one).
Like it seems to me that there’s going to be a fundamental difference between a jury of locals who know each other weighing in on the fate of someone who has been preying on their community, who is also a part of it, compared to a jury of locals who don’t know each other weighing in on the fate of somebody they don’t know, with the promise of an abstract “just” outcome if they decide properly. How can you know you’re judging properly if you’re out of touch with the consequences? Not dissimilar from cops who police areas they don’t even live in.
Maybe that’s a bit idealistic thinking when considering scale of things, I dunno. But I guess I figure, earlier societies would have been more of “tight-knit community trying to police itself” rather than abstraction and principles that seem more about filling the Justice Meter than resolving and healing (mind you, I mostly mean my understanding of the US justice system when I say this and granted that is also warped by class, racism, etc.).
The dictatorship of one person to decide the fate of a person or persons’ life & freedom is an inherently repulsive concept to me.
We oppose autocracy in government, we oppose autocracy in the workplace, therefore it only seems consistent to oppose autocracy in the courts.
Juries aren’t perfect but I would rather entrust judicial power into a democratic collective than a pompous autarch.
My very ignorant opinion is that trial by jury doesn’t seem to make anywhere near the difference one might expect it to in terms of creating a more just system. I’d compare it to switching from a presidential system to a parliamentary system. It’s only a superficial change that doesn’t really make a difference with regards to the structural forces that produce the conflicts being resolved in court in the first place.
I agree. I will say that switching to trial by jury does result in some marginal improvement at the extremes. Even the worst cases of trial by jury, i.e. Jim Crow era, were reflections of the rot of U.S. society as a whole, while the most egregious cases of trial by judge can be caused by just one corrupt judge.
Examples include:
- Steven Donziger, who sued Chevron to force them to clean up their destruction (entire lakes and rivers filled with toxic oil) of the Ecuadorian rainforest from past oil drilling. Instead, Chevron got permission to hire a private judge, who made Donziger lose his law license, put him in jail, and pay millions in damages to Chevron.
- Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, who sent thousands of kids to private prisons for no justifiable reason in exchange for monetary kickbacks from the private prison company
My initial reaction, having no knowledge on the subject, is that it really depends. Do we need a jury for something simple like a traffic infraction? Probably not. But if the trial involves harm towards a community, members of that community should be able to weigh in.
