Jury system: how does it work? What are the pros and cons?

[0:00]Juries play a crucial role in the justice systems of democracies. There are two main types, petite juries and grand juries. Petite juries determine the verdict in court trials, whether civil or criminal, while grand juries decide if someone should face criminal charges. Juries include ordinary citizens, serving as a check against government power. The jury system originated in England during the Middle Ages and spread through the British Empire. Nowadays, the United States primarily utilizes juries, while the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other Commonwealth countries employ petite juries to a lesser extent. Grand juries are exclusive to the United States. Although specific characteristics and powers of juries vary across jurisdictions, there are commonalities. Juries comprise lay people rather than legal experts like judges, typically selected randomly from adult citizens. They deliberate in private, discussing the issues and reaching decisions through voting. Importantly, juries are not required to provide reasons for their verdicts. Petite juries try cases. In this way, a jury trial differs from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges tries the case alone. Trial juries are called petite, which means small in French, because of their size, not their function. Such juries commonly have 12 or six members, which is fewer than grand juries do. In the early centuries of the trial jury system, specific requirements such as land ownership existed, and women were excluded from serving as jurors. However, this changed in the 20th century. Nowadays, potential jurors are typically selected randomly from all adult citizens in the district where the court is located. In the United States, jury selection often relies on voter registration roles. Certain occupations, including lawyers, clergy members, physicians, and police, may be exempt from jury duty in some jurisdictions. Being called for jury duty doesn't guarantee actual service. In the United States and some other countries, potential jurors undergo questioning by the judge and lawyers before the trial starts. Lawyers can challenge potential jurors if they are believed to have a specific bias in the case, known as challenges for cause. A limited number of peremptory challenges, where no cause needs to be stated, are also allowed. However, these challenges cannot be used to exclude individuals based on their sex, skin color, or ancestry. This screening process, called Vodier, meaning to say the truth, can be intricate and time consuming, particularly in high profile cases. The jury's primary responsibility is to determine the facts of the case based on the evidence presented in court. Throughout the trial, a judge oversees the jury and determines which evidence is admissible following established rules. The judge also explains the legal aspects of the evidence and the jury's duties. In criminal trials in the United States, if the judge determines that the evidence doesn't leave any factual matters to be resolved, they may direct a verdict of acquittal, effectively ending the trial. However, the judge cannot direct a guilty verdict. In civil trials, the judge may rule in favor of either the defendant or the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence, the jury convenes privately to deliberate and reach a verdict. Traditionally, unanimous verdicts, where all jurors agree, have been required. However, some jurisdictions, like certain US States, permit verdicts to be reached if a specified majority agrees, even if some jurors disagree. If the required number of jurors cannot agree on a verdict, resulting in a hung jury, the judge declares a mistrial. This means the case must be retried with a new jury unless the prosecution withdraws the case. In some legal systems, if a jury's verdict significantly contradicts the weight of the evidence, the judge may set it aside. However, in the United States and England, the exception to this rule is acquittal in a criminal trial where a jury's verdict of acquittal is final. In certain jurisdictions, if a jury finds a defendant guilty in a criminal case, they may be responsible for determining the appropriate punishment. In civil cases, if the jury rules in favor of the plaintiff, they may also be tasked with determining the damages to be awarded. The jury trial system has sparked extensive debates regarding its merits. Some people express concerns that juries are selected from a diverse populace and may lack the intelligence or sophistication to comprehend legal complexities. They worry that emotions or other non legal factors could sway their decisions. Conversely, proponents argue that non expert juries contribute valuable common sense and open mindedness to trials. They believe this leads to decisions being made in alignment with the spirit of the law, rather than rigid adherence to individual statutes.