Anyone who has served on a jury or tried a case knows that the American jury system is pretty stupid. Don’t get us wrong — it is absolutely without a doubt a sacred institution designed to ensure justice better than any other system we know of — but it’s still stupid.
Think about it — You take a dozen people who probably don’t practice criminal law. You tell them they’re going to be deciding someone’s guilt or innocence, and then you shove a few weeks of testimony and exhibits in front of them. But you don’t tell them what the law is — what they’ll be applying — until after all the evidence is over. You don’t tell them what they should have been listening for, until it’s too late. You don’t let them ask questions of witnesses to clarify points they didn’t get. When everything’s over, and it’s finally time to tell them the law they’re going to apply, you simply read it to them for a few hours. You don’t let them take notes. You don’t give them a copy of the law you just read them. They are presumed to have memorized and applied correctly the intricate flowchart of criminal elements for each crime, definitions of legal jargon, and all the other attendant instructions. If they ask for clarification later, you simply read the instruction to them again.
And that’s not even half of it. On top of all that, you make them do the judge’s job, in addition to their own.
The jury’s job is to make findings of fact. The judge’s job is to make rulings of law. The jury’s job is very important — their job is to decide on the official version of the facts. The court cannot do anything until the facts are established, and then it can take the necessary action — whether it be punishing the guilty or freeing the not guilty. But the determination of “guilty” or “not guilty” is a legal conclusion reached by analyzing the official version of the facts. And in our system, we tell the jury to make that ruling of law.
In fact, those who were not in that jury room will only ever see the ultimate legal conclusion, and will only be able to speculate as to what the actual facts were on which that conclusion was based. Based on studies of jurors (and anecdotal discussions after many trials), it appears that a large number of verdicts are based on flawed application of the law to the facts — or even without any such application whatsoever. People are found guilty of crimes where jurors did not think essential elements had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People are found not guilty of crimes where the jurors were actually persuaded of the necessary elements. Jurors hang, or screw up, because they don’t understand what they’re doing.
The system is stupid, and almost guarantees injustice.
Fortunately, the problems are easy to fix.
One simple fix, which resolves quite a few of these inanities, would involve little more than (more…)