0:00:07.213,0:00:09.972
Dating back at least [br]to the time of Socrates,

0:00:09.972,0:00:13.263
some early societies decided[br]that certain disputes,

0:00:13.263,0:00:16.173
such as whether a person committed[br]a particular crime,

0:00:16.173,0:00:18.832
should be heard by a group of citizens.

0:00:18.832,0:00:23.053
Several centuries later, trial by jury[br]was introduced to England,

0:00:23.053,0:00:26.842
where it became a fundamental feature[br]of the legal system,

0:00:26.842,0:00:30.954
checking the government [br]and involving citizens in decision-making.

0:00:30.954,0:00:34.164
Juries decided whether defendants[br]would be tried on crimes,

0:00:34.164,0:00:37.462
determined whether the accused[br]defendants were guilty,

0:00:37.462,0:00:40.453
and resolved monetary disputes.

0:00:40.453,0:00:44.123
While the American colonies eventually[br]cast off England's rule,

0:00:44.123,0:00:46.834
its legal tradition of the jury persisted.

0:00:46.834,0:00:49.844
The United States Constitution [br]instructed a grand jury

0:00:49.844,0:00:52.594
to decide whether [br]criminal cases proceeded,

0:00:52.594,0:00:56.134
required a jury to try all crimes,[br]except impeachment,

0:00:56.134,0:00:59.282
and provided for juries [br]in civil cases as well.

0:00:59.282,0:01:03.004
Yet, in the US today,[br]grand juries often are not convened,

0:01:03.004,0:01:06.864
and juries decide less than 4%[br]of criminal cases

0:01:06.864,0:01:10.354
and less than 1% of civil cases[br]filed in court.

0:01:10.354,0:01:14.424
That's at the same time as jury systems[br]in other countries are growing.

0:01:14.424,0:01:16.885
So what happened in the U.S.?

0:01:16.885,0:01:21.895
Part of the story lies in how the Supreme[br]Court has interpreted the Constitution.

0:01:21.895,0:01:23.657
It's permitted plea bargaining,

0:01:23.657,0:01:26.520
which now occurs in almost [br]every criminal case.

0:01:26.520,0:01:29.817
The way it works is the prosecutor[br]presents the accused

0:01:29.817,0:01:32.236
with a decision of whether [br]to plead guilty.

0:01:32.236,0:01:35.582
If they accept the plea, the case won't[br]go in front of a jury,

0:01:35.582,0:01:37.751
but they'll receive [br]a shorter prison sentence

0:01:37.751,0:01:40.841
than they'd get if [br]a jury did convict them.

0:01:40.841,0:01:43.671
The risk of a much greater [br]prison sentence after a trial

0:01:43.671,0:01:47.511
can frighten even an innocent defendant[br]into taking a plea.

0:01:47.511,0:01:49.992
Between the 19th century [br]and the 21st century,

0:01:49.992,0:01:55.522
the proportion of guilty pleas[br]has increased from around 20% to 90%,

0:01:55.522,0:01:57.617
and the numbers continue to grow.

0:01:57.617,0:02:00.503
The Supreme Court has permitted[br]the use of another procedure

0:02:00.503,0:02:02.313
that interferes with the jury

0:02:02.313,0:02:04.044
called summary judgement.

0:02:04.044,0:02:08.143
Using summary judgement, judges can[br]decide that civil trials are unnecessary

0:02:08.143,0:02:11.962
if the people who sue [br]have insufficient evidence.

0:02:11.962,0:02:17.002
This is intended only for cases[br]where no reasonable jury would disagree.

0:02:17.002,0:02:19.102
That's a difficult thing [br]to determine,

0:02:19.102,0:02:21.982
yet usage of summary judgement[br]has stretched to the point

0:02:21.982,0:02:25.012
where some would argue it's being abused.

0:02:25.012,0:02:27.723
For instance, judges grant fully,[br]or in part,

0:02:27.723,0:02:30.367
over 70% of employers' requests

0:02:30.367,0:02:33.712
to dismiss employment [br]discrimination cases.

0:02:33.712,0:02:38.114
In other cases, both the person who sues[br]and the person who defends

0:02:38.114,0:02:40.683
forgo their right to go to court,

0:02:40.683,0:02:44.544
instead resolving their dispute through[br]a professional arbitrator.

0:02:44.544,0:02:48.173
These are generally lawyers, professors,[br]or former judges.

0:02:48.173,0:02:51.044
Arbitration can be a smart decision[br]by both parties

0:02:51.044,0:02:53.984
to avoid the requirements [br]of a trial in court,

0:02:53.984,0:02:57.194
but it's often agreed to unwittingly[br]when people sign contracts

0:02:57.194,0:03:01.105
like employment applications[br]and consumer agreements.

0:03:01.105,0:03:02.575
That can become a problem.

0:03:02.575,0:03:05.144
For example, some arbitrators [br]may be biased

0:03:05.144,0:03:07.555
towards the companies[br]that give them cases.

0:03:07.555,0:03:10.725
These are just some of the ways[br]in which juries have disappeared.

0:03:10.725,0:03:13.765
But could the disappearance of juries[br]be a good thing?

0:03:13.765,0:03:15.685
Well, juries aren't perfect.

0:03:15.685,0:03:16.775
They're costly,

0:03:16.775,0:03:17.765
time-consuming,

0:03:17.765,0:03:19.275
and may make errors.

0:03:19.275,0:03:21.255
And they're not always necessary,

0:03:21.255,0:03:24.684
like when people can simply agree[br]to settle their disputes.

0:03:24.684,0:03:26.765
But juries have their advantages.

0:03:26.765,0:03:28.135
When properly selected,

0:03:28.135,0:03:31.516
jurors are more representative of[br]the general population

0:03:31.516,0:03:34.366
and don't have the same incentives[br]as prosecutors,

0:03:34.366,0:03:35.256
legislators,

0:03:35.256,0:03:36.256
or judges

0:03:36.256,0:03:38.315
seeking reelection or promotion.

0:03:38.315,0:03:40.966
The founders of the United States trusted[br]in the wisdom

0:03:40.966,0:03:42.845
of impartial groups of citizens

0:03:42.845,0:03:45.805
to check the power of all three branches[br]of government.

0:03:45.805,0:03:49.246
And the jury trial itself has given[br]ordinary citizens

0:03:49.246,0:03:52.145
a central role in upholding[br]the social fabric.

0:03:52.145,0:03:56.356
So will the jury system in the U.S.[br]survive into the future?