-
Dating back at least
to the time of Socrates,
-
some early societies decided
that certain disputes,
-
such as whether a person committed
a particular crime,
-
should be heard by a group of citizens.
-
Several centuries later, trial by jury
was introduced to England,
-
where it became a fundamental feature
of the legal system,
-
checking the government
and involving citizens in decisionmaking.
-
Juries decided whether defendants
would be tried on crimes,
-
determined whether the accused
defendants were guilty,
-
and resolved monetary disputes.
-
While the American Colonies eventually
cast off England's rule,
-
its legal tradition of the jury persisted.
-
The United States Constitution
instructed a grand jury
-
to decide whether
criminal cases proceeded,
-
required a jury to try all crimes,
except impeachement,
-
and provided for juries
in civil cases as well.
-
Yet, in the US today,
grand juries often are not convened,
-
and juries decide less than 4%
of criminal cases,
-
and less than 1% of civil cases
filed in court.
-
That's at the same time as jury systems
in other countries are growing.
-
So what happened in the US?
-
Part of the story lies in how the Supreme
Court has interpreted the Constitution.
-
It's permitted plea bargaining,
-
which now occurs in almost
every criminal case.
-
The way it works is the prosecutor
presents the accused
-
with a decision of whether
to plead guilty.
-
If they accept the plea, the case won't
go in front of a jury,
-
but they'll receive
a shorter prison sentence
-
than they'd get if
a jury did convict them.
-
The risk of a much greater
prison sentence after a trial
-
can frighten even an innocent defendant
into taking a plea.
-
Between the 19th century
and the 21st century,
-
the proportion of guilty pleas
has increased from around 20% to 90%,
-
and the numbers continue to grow.
-
The Supreme Court has permitted
the use of another procedure
-
that interferes with the jury
-
called summary judgement.
-
Using summary judgement, judges can
decide that civil trials are unnecessary
-
if the people who sue
have insufficient evidence.
-
This is intended only for cases
where no reasonable jury would disagree.
-
That's a difficult to determine,
-
yet usage of summary judgement
has stretched to the point
-
where some would argue it's being abused.
-
For instance, judges grant fully,
or in part,
-
over 70% of employers' requests
-
to dismiss employment
discrimination cases.
-
In other cases, both the person who sues
and the person who defends
-
forgo their right to go to court,
-
instead resolving their dispute through
a professional arbitrator.
-
These are generally lawyers, professors,
or former judges.
-
Arbitration can be a smart decision
by both parties
-
to avoid the requirements
of a trial in court,
-
but it's often agreed to unwittingly
when people sign contracts
-
like employment applications
and consumer agreements.
-
That can become a problem.
-
For example, some arbitrators
may be biased
-
towards the company that give them cases.
-
These are just some of the ways
in which juries have disappeared.
-
But could the disappearance of juries
be a good thing?
-
Well, juries aren't perfect.
-
Their costly,
-
time-consuming,
-
and may make errors.
-
And they're not always necessary,
-
like when people can simply agree
to settle their disputes.
-
But juries have their advantages.
-
When properly selected,
-
jurors are more representative of
the general population
-
and don't have the same incentives
as prosecutors,
-
legislators,
-
or judges
-
seeking reelection or promotion.
-
The founders of the United States trusted
in the wisdom
-
of impartial groups of citizens
-
to check the power of all three branches
of government.
-
And the jury trial itself has given
ordinary citizens
-
a central role in upholding
the social fabric.
-
So will the jury system in the US
survive into the future?