submitted 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
 

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
[–] 2 points 8 hours ago*

That almost surely depends on what you are accused of, the evidence against you and, obviously, whether you did it.

If it's something where the fallibility of humans can be exploited, or there is obvious government overreach that people would hate, a jury is probably your best bet.

Look at all the recent grand juries in the US refusing to even indict people for things that, on paper, are illegal. Prosecutorial overreach is one reason juries exist as a check on the system. Jury nullification is a check on the system. Yeah you might have done it, and everyone may even agree that you did it, but your peers have decided what you did was justified, or shouldn't have even been illegal in the first place.

If it's a very technical issue, and an average person is unlikely to understand small nuances that make the difference, you probably want a bench trial. Have the expert determine your guilt based on the specifics that matter. Don't rely on 12 average people having to be taught about a technical legal matter, or understanding very specific wording in a law, especially if that wording excludes the exact situation you are in. Legalese is written for specific accuracy, not average readability.

  • source
  • parent