Jury tends to be there as a check of sorts to safeguard from corrupt and negligent judges having the final and only say
But doesn't the jury present its findings before the verdict of a judge? Does it have the power to question a final verdict of a judge after it has been made and turns out to go against the word of the jury?
And even then: how is a couple of people who haven't studied law supposed to know if a judge's verdict, even if it's made with corrupt or negligent motives, is or isn't following the law? And even if a judge's motives and conduct are questionable, there are plenty of back-up procedures for a wrongly convicted party to pursue to get justice after all; unless the entire judical system is corrupt and negligent of course but the chances of that being the case is relatively small, I'd say.
We only just reopened those relations. Perhaps reestablishing them would be part of the tensions? We will talk about it later
Never trust a word I type
Not even these
I like to leave this up to reader interpretation.
Judges don't pass verdicts. The jury alone decides. It is grossly improper for a judge to provide his or her opinion before the jury has made its decision. As for the competence of the jury (typically 12 people), it is the job of the lawyers involved to explain their cases in the context of the law. The judge is responsible for instructing members of the jury on proper court procedures, especially if one of the lawyers tries to take advantage of their ignorance. When they make their decision, they are provided with copies of all the evidence, relevant laws, and the arguments of the lawyers. They are then left to make their decisions. They are usually fairly straightforward. They do have the power to acquit (in criminal law) or decide for one side or the other (civil law) in spite of the letter of the law. This is called Jury Nullification. This is typically done when the jury believes that the letter of the law is unjust or is being applied unjustly by the state. As all law in a Common Law state is supposed to be the codification of society's rules and expectations, it is entirely right and proper that ordinary members of society rather than an elite class of lawyers and judges be the ones that determine how it is applied. This is why in the American Bill of Rights a citizen is entitled to a trial by a jury made up of his or her peers. Decisions can be appealed to a higher court, but the same charges cannot be brought against the same person twice after a jury has ruled.
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 wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
For small matters (the twenty dollars figure is somewhat obsolete), arbitration, and certain cases in family law, there is no jury and a judge, or panel of judges decides the case. This is more for convenience than anything else, as summoning people for jury duty every time someone complains about their neighbor's hedge would get really annoying really fast.
Ah I love legal things like this
How did you hear about The Western Isles?
-Was just browsing some of the regions and found your region appealing.
What's some information about yourself (hobbies, interests, country, etc.)?
-Mainly into politics, economics and history. Weimar period in particular.
What kind of nation are you trying to make? Left-Centre Republic
The judge presents the chain of events and what has happened to the jury so they can deliberate and discuss with eachother and ultimately, come to a consensus. One does not have to study years of law to determine what was broken and what was not, that was not and what was a right, that's for the lawyers and prosecutors to present. A group of capable men and women are most likely able to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent based on what was presented. One of my favorite movies, 12 Angry Men, describes the deliberation process quite well and provides a logical reason for the jurors to come to the conclusions that they did.
Personally, I would rather have my fate placed in 12 men who would be discussing the evidence and whether I was guilty or not, than a single judge.
In addition, there's jury selection, where the lawyers from both sides work against/with each other to select the most impartial jury possible (i.e., each one tries to stack the jury in their favor, but they really can't with the other one there, hence a tenuous balance).
It is a constitutional right, shared by all citizens. All states and territories have criminal and major civil cases tried by jury. In the case mentioned above, in the US the prosecution might move for a mistrial if the jury really had been misled in the ways the prosecution claimed. In that case a new trial, with a new jury and a new judge, would be conducted.
Bro why does my Coca-Cola Cherry Zero have a tinge of beer-like fermentation to it?
Should I stop drinking it...? I'm not gonna, I just wanna know if it's safe to choose not to