How do criminal courts work without juries around the world? | Trial by jury
One of the most important suggestions in the review of the criminal courts in the UK and Wales, which are expected to be published this week, will probably be scrapped the jury hearings for certain crimes.
The idea in Sir Brian Leveson’s independent investigation is that it will help reduce the accumulation of records in the courts. However, apart from the smallest crimes, the right to a jury is synonymous with the right to a fair trial, and it will be great controversial to irrigate it.
Here Guardian examines how the criminal courts of other countries work.
WE
In the United States, the sixth amendments of the Constitution say: “In all criminal prosecution, the defendant will benefit from the right to quick and public trial by an impartial jury of the state.”
But the Supreme Court Managed in 1970 These “small” crimes, which are punished for a maximum of six months, can be tried without the jury. This is compatible with the maximum imprisonment in the Courts of Magistrates in England and Wales, but since November 18 last year, peace judges have been able to deliver the imprisonment of up to one year.
In the USA, the defendants have the right to waive the jury hearing, provided that they are voluntarily and wise. In the UK and Wales, it has a much more limited choice that exists only in case of “Ya Ya Yolu” crimes. These are the criminal charges that the magistrate believes that they have sufficient punishment to hear the case, but the defendant can hold a jury hearing.
Perhaps the worst trial in the United States was that the jury members negotiated Oj Simpson’s ex -wife Nicole Brown Simpson and his friend Ronald Goldman in less than four hours before he took the murders. Goldman and Brown families later won a civilian lawsuit against Simpson.
Germany
Since 1924, the jury has not been held in Germany. Most cases are tried by a Panel of a professional and non -occupational judges. Lay Judges It should be between 25 and 69 years old. Religious ministers working in the court system are among those who exclude some politicians and health professionals. Municipal councils prepare a list of ordinary members of the appropriate people and then elected by a committee for a five -year period.
Schöffen helps to decide on both the law and the truth. Accordingly Encyclopedia Britannica: “Although Schöffen is seen as an important part of the German legal system, many professional lawyers, including lawyers and judges, tend to believe that their effects continue to decrease and ultimately because of their personal project tendency rather than legalist views.”
India
The jury trials were first introduced to India under the British administration in 1665. It is said that the Indian Legal Commission called the jury system as “failure ve, which reflects the concern in 1958, but their abolition was the famous Nanavati case the following year. A jury was acquitted of the Indian Navy commander of the murder of his wife’s lover, despite the overwhelming evidence of the Supreme Court of Bombay (Mumbai) to overthrow the non -guilty decision.
The legal commission report criticized the use of “unscrupulous professional jury members ve and criticized the inability of juries to make“ independent, neutral and fair decisions .. The Nanavati case increased concerns about prejudice related to religion and caste, and the effect of external pressures and jury cases began to gradually be removed.
They were not officially abolished until the 1973 Criminal Procedure Law stated: “After listening to arguments and points of law (if any), the judge will make a decision in the case.”
France
The jury hearing in France was a legacy of the 1789 revolution. It is limited to the most serious lawsuits felt by Cour d’Ssises, where the six jury members of the three judges lived. Unlike the hostile system used in England and Wales, and where the jury members are located, the French judges have a deliberate questioning judicial system to make a decision.
Cases that could be heard by Cour d’SSises were controversial in 2023 with those who carry the longest sentences. That year, it was decided that all the crimes sentenced to maximum 15-20 years of imprisonment should be tried by five referee panels at the “Département Criminal Courts olarak, which covers almost all rape hearings. A few thousand lawyers, academics and judges warned that the removal of juries is a danger democracy.
In a case that attracted the attention of the world, Dominique Pelicot was found guilty last year, and when he was sentenced to 20 years in prison to numb his wife Gisèle Pelicot, and when he invited dozens of men to rape him for almost a decade, he was a panel of five judges.
