4814f9d0@news.povray.org...
>  I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

Note that the US is quite unique in that it allows jury trials for both 
civil and criminal cases, and in the latter case jury trials are 
(theoretically at least) possible even for lesser crimes. Common law 
countries are on the whole more favourable to jury trials than civil law 
countries, where they are usually limited to the most serious crimes.

Now, IANAL or a legal scientist, but it could be that the rationale for jury 
trials in common law countries emerged because in common law systems the law 
is by definition created by the judges, who have the authority to make 
precedents, so that a popular jury (the defendent's peers) is necessary as a 
counterbalance to that (potentially arbitrary) power: it's the principle of 
separation of powers between those who make the law and those who apply it. 
In other words, jury trials are there to prevent judges to create law as it 
fits them.

In civil law countries, the law is codified by the State (and in a 
democracy, the law is written by the People's representatives) and judges 
can only read/interpret the law. They cannot make it, so the separation of 
powers is built in the system. However, popular juries still exist in civil 
law countries, perhaps due to the practical fact that a Penal code doesn't 
provide the "internal conviction" (which doesn't depend on the law, but on 
facts) required for the final judgement in the most difficult cases. 
However, for the majority of offenses, civil law countries use bench trials, 
not jury trials.

Again, IANAL so I could be completely off base here.

G.

Post a reply to this message