WEBVTT 00:00:07.213 --> 00:00:09.972 Dating back at least to the time of Socrates, 00:00:09.972 --> 00:00:13.263 some early societies decided that certain disputes, 00:00:13.263 --> 00:00:16.173 such as whether a person committed a particular crime, 00:00:16.173 --> 00:00:18.832 should be heard by a group of citizens. 00:00:18.832 --> 00:00:23.053 Several centuries later, trial by jury was introduced to England, 00:00:23.053 --> 00:00:26.842 where it became a fundamental feature of the legal system, 00:00:26.842 --> 00:00:30.954 checking the government and involving citizens in decision-making. 00:00:30.954 --> 00:00:34.164 Juries decided whether defendants would be tried on crimes, 00:00:34.164 --> 00:00:37.462 determined whether the accused defendants were guilty, 00:00:37.462 --> 00:00:40.453 and resolved monetary disputes. 00:00:40.453 --> 00:00:44.123 While the American colonies eventually cast off England's rule, 00:00:44.123 --> 00:00:46.834 its legal tradition of the jury persisted. 00:00:46.834 --> 00:00:49.844 The United States Constitution instructed a grand jury 00:00:49.844 --> 00:00:52.594 to decide whether criminal cases proceeded, 00:00:52.594 --> 00:00:56.134 required a jury to try all crimes, except impeachment, 00:00:56.134 --> 00:00:59.282 and provided for juries in civil cases as well. 00:00:59.282 --> 00:01:03.004 Yet, in the US today, grand juries often are not convened, 00:01:03.004 --> 00:01:06.864 and juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases 00:01:06.864 --> 00:01:10.354 and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court. 00:01:10.354 --> 00:01:14.424 That's at the same time as jury systems in other countries are growing. 00:01:14.424 --> 00:01:16.885 So what happened in the U.S.? 00:01:16.885 --> 00:01:21.895 Part of the story lies in how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. 00:01:21.895 --> 00:01:23.657 It's permitted plea bargaining, 00:01:23.657 --> 00:01:26.520 which now occurs in almost every criminal case. 00:01:26.520 --> 00:01:29.817 The way it works is the prosecutor presents the accused 00:01:29.817 --> 00:01:32.236 with a decision of whether to plead guilty. 00:01:32.236 --> 00:01:35.582 If they accept the plea, the case won't go in front of a jury, 00:01:35.582 --> 00:01:37.751 but they'll receive a shorter prison sentence 00:01:37.751 --> 00:01:40.841 than they'd get if a jury did convict them. 00:01:40.841 --> 00:01:43.671 The risk of a much greater prison sentence after a trial 00:01:43.671 --> 00:01:47.511 can frighten even an innocent defendant into taking a plea. 00:01:47.511 --> 00:01:49.992 Between the 19th century and the 21st century, 00:01:49.992 --> 00:01:55.522 the proportion of guilty pleas has increased from around 20% to 90%, 00:01:55.522 --> 00:01:57.617 and the numbers continue to grow. 00:01:57.617 --> 00:02:00.503 The Supreme Court has permitted the use of another procedure 00:02:00.503 --> 00:02:02.313 that interferes with the jury 00:02:02.313 --> 00:02:04.044 called summary judgement. 00:02:04.044 --> 00:02:08.143 Using summary judgement, judges can decide that civil trials are unnecessary 00:02:08.143 --> 00:02:11.962 if the people who sue have insufficient evidence. 00:02:11.962 --> 00:02:17.002 This is intended only for cases where no reasonable jury would disagree. 00:02:17.002 --> 00:02:19.102 That's a difficult thing to determine, 00:02:19.102 --> 00:02:21.982 yet usage of summary judgement has stretched to the point 00:02:21.982 --> 00:02:25.012 where some would argue it's being abused. 00:02:25.012 --> 00:02:27.723 For instance, judges grant fully, or in part, 00:02:27.723 --> 00:02:30.367 over 70% of employers' requests 00:02:30.367 --> 00:02:33.712 to dismiss employment discrimination cases. 00:02:33.712 --> 00:02:38.114 In other cases, both the person who sues and the person who defends 00:02:38.114 --> 00:02:40.683 forgo their right to go to court, 00:02:40.683 --> 00:02:44.544 instead resolving their dispute through a professional arbitrator. 00:02:44.544 --> 00:02:48.173 These are generally lawyers, professors, or former judges. 00:02:48.173 --> 00:02:51.044 Arbitration can be a smart decision by both parties 00:02:51.044 --> 00:02:53.984 to avoid the requirements of a trial in court, 00:02:53.984 --> 00:02:57.194 but it's often agreed to unwittingly when people sign contracts 00:02:57.194 --> 00:03:01.105 like employment applications and consumer agreements. 00:03:01.105 --> 00:03:02.575 That can become a problem. 00:03:02.575 --> 00:03:05.144 For example, some arbitrators may be biased 00:03:05.144 --> 00:03:07.555 towards the companies that give them cases. 00:03:07.555 --> 00:03:10.725 These are just some of the ways in which juries have disappeared. 00:03:10.725 --> 00:03:13.765 But could the disappearance of juries be a good thing? 00:03:13.765 --> 00:03:15.685 Well, juries aren't perfect. 00:03:15.685 --> 00:03:16.775 They're costly, 00:03:16.775 --> 00:03:17.765 time-consuming, 00:03:17.765 --> 00:03:19.275 and may make errors. 00:03:19.275 --> 00:03:21.255 And they're not always necessary, 00:03:21.255 --> 00:03:24.684 like when people can simply agree to settle their disputes. 00:03:24.684 --> 00:03:26.765 But juries have their advantages. 00:03:26.765 --> 00:03:28.135 When properly selected, 00:03:28.135 --> 00:03:31.516 jurors are more representative of the general population 00:03:31.516 --> 00:03:34.366 and don't have the same incentives as prosecutors, 00:03:34.366 --> 00:03:35.256 legislators, 00:03:35.256 --> 00:03:36.256 or judges 00:03:36.256 --> 00:03:38.315 seeking reelection or promotion. 00:03:38.315 --> 00:03:40.966 The founders of the United States trusted in the wisdom 00:03:40.966 --> 00:03:42.845 of impartial groups of citizens 00:03:42.845 --> 00:03:45.805 to check the power of all three branches of government. 00:03:45.805 --> 00:03:49.246 And the jury trial itself has given ordinary citizens 00:03:49.246 --> 00:03:52.145 a central role in upholding the social fabric. 00:03:52.145 --> 00:03:56.356 So will the jury system in the U.S. survive into the future?