Jury of your peers
Published August 6th, 2009The Bill of Rights, contrary to popular belief, does not guarantee a trial by a “jury of your peers” - that stems more from a few lines in the Magna Carta (that actually don’t really even apply). The text of the 6th Amendment reads, ” In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law…” So really, your victim’s peers and not your peers. A little less friendly sounding now, eh?
But that’s our country, where we have a foundation of law stemming from England and its jury system. That isn’t so in other countries - even ones that have been heavily influenced by our country. Case in point - Japan. Japan has held its first jury trial since 1943. It’s pretty amazing that the US influence after the war didn’t insert right to a jury trial into the constitution, but upon heavier reflection it does make some sense. The guy in charge was an authoritarian military man. The Japanese have a traditionally hierarchical society - not one of “everyone’s equal” like we’re (nominally) used to. But times have changed, the system has become completely bogged down and so Japan - in its never ending quest for efficiency - is overhauling its trial system.
In the Japanese system, 3 judges and 6 citizens decide the fate of the defendant - both guilt and sentencing. All 9 are considered judges for the duration of the trial. It is an interesting system and I think it had great merits. But what can we say about the American system? That is a much thornier topic.
Assume for a moment that you are innocent of a crime, but are about to stand trial. Twelve citizens will decide your guilt. Their decision will be almost certainly be considered final. How comfortable are you knowing that most people don’t want to do that? That they want to be elsewhere, badly, have tried as hard as they could to get out of it and are being paid so little that they want to get it over with as soon as possible to go back to their real job? Does that instill confidence in you as a defendant? Also, what are you on trial for? What are the charges? The system is so complicated that we have lawyers - people who have studied years in school to reach this point - hired to navigate and defend or prosecute. The judge is almost certainly a lawyer as well, with even more schooling and experience. Do you trust 12 average (possibly below average as well as above average) individuals to be able to see through any slick lawyering? To understand the law as explained by biased parties?
Suddenly a fair trial gets scary. Why do we still have it this way? Jury selection has become a game in itself as both sides try to weed out anyone who might hurt their side. It’s considered a “fair” balance because both sides are working against each other…but neither side is fighting for “fair” - and that’s a little scary. Maybe we should consider reforming the US trial system too. Laws are so complex it’s hard to imagine getting a fair trial from a group of people with no special knowledge. I’ve heard that’s part of the beauty of the system, but I think that’s a glaring weakness. I’d rather have educated professionals deciding my fate, not a group who might get snookered by biased legal wrangling. I think we need professional jurors in this country, sooner rather than later. Would you trust your life and your future to 12 randomly chosen amateurs in ANY other setting? Ever?
I think Japan has reformed their system wrongly - though since they’re willing to tweak, maybe they’ll have professional jurors at some point. Time will tell. But it’s pretty cool to see a country actually reforming a system as basic as their trial system - that’s something we should learn from them.
I’ve been interested in this question since I was a kid. I didn’t know your point about the Magna Carta and learned something new about Japan, thanks to your post.
The idea of professional, expert arbiters who are neither judges nor lawyers sounds to me like the way the government works. Three branches keep each other in check (supposedly). Currently, the accused are technically allowed to choose between juries or judges interpreting the evidence, so the only thing I see wrong with a menu of three choices for the accused is increasing the appeals quagmire. In other words, this third option might make things more inefficient.
I’m not sold on professional jurors, but I do think we should have minimum requirements for jurors. Something based on education (college) and/or property (head of household).