10
Why do Western countries have jury duty? (multiverse.soulism.net)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All nations within the Anglosphere (US, UK, CA, AU & NZ) have JD imposed towards citizens. I know that the US & Canada both inherited that from Britain, which explains why they have it. However, should it be entirely only the judge making the conviction (some countries operate on a lay-judge system meaning juries aren't used, such as Finland or Japan for example) rather than leaving that decision up to jurors?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 11 hours ago

It's a historical quirk. When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain and set up a new government, there was one King, and there was one King's court. As in, all court happened in the King's court. The King would travel to various areas of the country to hold Court. However, as the government and legal system grew, the number of cases outgrew the King's ability to hear them all. He couldn't be in so many places at once.

So, juries were a pragmatic solution. For minor issues, the locals in question were charged to handle their own affairs on the King's behalf. However, for major controversies and felonies, they had to travel to the King's Court.

Over time, the jury system became an established part of the culture. A judge can be biased or corrupted unfairly, but it's the will of the people to only deliver just punishment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •