Description
Attached >Instructions
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
JURY SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
JURY SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
(Author’s name)
(Institutional Affiliation)
1
JURY SYSTEMS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
The legal world and justice courts are experiencing a renaissance globally and every country is
striving to achieve citizen participation in the courts persecuting criminal cases. Juries represent
the voice of the community in the court room and ensure the law is in line with the community
idea on truth justice and fairness. This paper aims to explore the different jury systems in
different countries
Jury is a group of people that have been carefully selected from the community who listen and
make decision on the outcome of legal cases. Jury system is prevalent in countries that practice
the common law and are mostly evolved countries with good legal systems. This jury system
encourages the participation of the ordinary citizen in the decision making in criminal cases.
Countries that were under the British empire were among the first to adopt to this system after
the British left them.
In the early 1800’s Europe had disputes or cases decided by a system called trial by ordeal. Trial
by ordeal included trial by fire that involved the accused to dip his had in hot water or have a hot
iron metal placed on him. Well, these methods were archaic and in human and thus the European
catholic church disputed it and thus the need to adopt to a new way of case resolution was
developed. Europe adapted to the system that was being used to resolve real estate taxes conflict.
This involved the participation of 12 district knights. The knights came together to listen to the
conflicts and decided on evidence who was the first land owner. This became a reflection in the
society and was used to decide the criminal cases. The jury became fact deciders and their first
case was the Bushel’s case of 1670.
Countries such as the united states, Australia, Germany, France adapted to the jury system in the
early 1800’s but in the recent years many countries seem to be borrowing a leaf from these
countries and are now implementing the involvement of laypersons in criminal case decisions.
The recent judicial revolution has made even the cultural countries like china, Japan, south Korea
are embracing jurisprudence.
The jury system takes three forms the traditional jury system where the ordinary lay man is
allowed to speak his voice without fear in the discussions of evidence produced during criminal
cases. The traditional jury did not involve any law professionals in the verdict discussions except
the judge who only executed the law. The other form is the mixed tribunal which consists of lay
persons and professionals. The law professionals are in the jury to help in decision making of the
jury consistent to the law and not just based on community values and evidence. The latter is
often not appreciated since it stipples the voices of the citizens in the jury since their decision is
highly influenced by the professionals. Unlike the traditional and continental, the mixed tribunal
decides the verdict and can also pas sentence. The third is the continental jury model that gives
all power to the jury to determine the defendant’s guilt but do not pass sentence. Some of the
countries that employ this model are Canada, Australia and England.
United states of America is one of the main countries embracing the involvement of citizens in
criminal cases. They adapted it from the British who had a major influence on them, the
medieval England is where it all began but reached its flowering point in the united states of
America. United states is one of the long serving in the traditional jury system. In the old
centuries the jury was a group of...