What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas
-
0:07 - 0:10Dating back at least
to the time of Socrates, -
0:10 - 0:13some early societies decided
that certain disputes, -
0:13 - 0:16such as whether a person committed
a particular crime, -
0:16 - 0:19should be heard by a group of citizens.
-
0:19 - 0:23Several centuries later, trial by jury
was introduced to England, -
0:23 - 0:27where it became a fundamental feature
of the legal system, -
0:27 - 0:31checking the government
and involving citizens in decision-making. -
0:31 - 0:34Juries decided whether defendants
would be tried on crimes, -
0:34 - 0:37determined whether the accused
defendants were guilty, -
0:37 - 0:40and resolved monetary disputes.
-
0:40 - 0:44While the American colonies eventually
cast off England's rule, -
0:44 - 0:47its legal tradition of the jury persisted.
-
0:47 - 0:50The United States Constitution
instructed a grand jury -
0:50 - 0:53to decide whether
criminal cases proceeded, -
0:53 - 0:56required a jury to try all crimes,
except impeachment, -
0:56 - 0:59and provided for juries
in civil cases as well. -
0:59 - 1:03Yet, in the US today,
grand juries often are not convened, -
1:03 - 1:07and juries decide less than 4%
of criminal cases -
1:07 - 1:10and less than 1% of civil cases
filed in court. -
1:10 - 1:14That's at the same time as jury systems
in other countries are growing. -
1:14 - 1:17So what happened in the U.S.?
-
1:17 - 1:22Part of the story lies in how the Supreme
Court has interpreted the Constitution. -
1:22 - 1:24It's permitted plea bargaining,
-
1:24 - 1:27which now occurs in almost
every criminal case. -
1:27 - 1:30The way it works is the prosecutor
presents the accused -
1:30 - 1:32with a decision of whether
to plead guilty. -
1:32 - 1:36If they accept the plea, the case won't
go in front of a jury, -
1:36 - 1:38but they'll receive
a shorter prison sentence -
1:38 - 1:41than they'd get if
a jury did convict them. -
1:41 - 1:44The risk of a much greater
prison sentence after a trial -
1:44 - 1:48can frighten even an innocent defendant
into taking a plea. -
1:48 - 1:50Between the 19th century
and the 21st century, -
1:50 - 1:56the proportion of guilty pleas
has increased from around 20% to 90%, -
1:56 - 1:58and the numbers continue to grow.
-
1:58 - 2:01The Supreme Court has permitted
the use of another procedure -
2:01 - 2:02that interferes with the jury
-
2:02 - 2:04called summary judgement.
-
2:04 - 2:08Using summary judgement, judges can
decide that civil trials are unnecessary -
2:08 - 2:12if the people who sue
have insufficient evidence. -
2:12 - 2:17This is intended only for cases
where no reasonable jury would disagree. -
2:17 - 2:19That's a difficult thing
to determine, -
2:19 - 2:22yet usage of summary judgement
has stretched to the point -
2:22 - 2:25where some would argue it's being abused.
-
2:25 - 2:28For instance, judges grant fully,
or in part, -
2:28 - 2:30over 70% of employers' requests
-
2:30 - 2:34to dismiss employment
discrimination cases. -
2:34 - 2:38In other cases, both the person who sues
and the person who defends -
2:38 - 2:41forgo their right to go to court,
-
2:41 - 2:45instead resolving their dispute through
a professional arbitrator. -
2:45 - 2:48These are generally lawyers, professors,
or former judges. -
2:48 - 2:51Arbitration can be a smart decision
by both parties -
2:51 - 2:54to avoid the requirements
of a trial in court, -
2:54 - 2:57but it's often agreed to unwittingly
when people sign contracts -
2:57 - 3:01like employment applications
and consumer agreements. -
3:01 - 3:03That can become a problem.
-
3:03 - 3:05For example, some arbitrators
may be biased -
3:05 - 3:08towards the companies
that give them cases. -
3:08 - 3:11These are just some of the ways
in which juries have disappeared. -
3:11 - 3:14But could the disappearance of juries
be a good thing? -
3:14 - 3:16Well, juries aren't perfect.
-
3:16 - 3:17They're costly,
-
3:17 - 3:18time-consuming,
-
3:18 - 3:19and may make errors.
-
3:19 - 3:21And they're not always necessary,
-
3:21 - 3:25like when people can simply agree
to settle their disputes. -
3:25 - 3:27But juries have their advantages.
-
3:27 - 3:28When properly selected,
-
3:28 - 3:32jurors are more representative of
the general population -
3:32 - 3:34and don't have the same incentives
as prosecutors, -
3:34 - 3:35legislators,
-
3:35 - 3:36or judges
-
3:36 - 3:38seeking reelection or promotion.
-
3:38 - 3:41The founders of the United States trusted
in the wisdom -
3:41 - 3:43of impartial groups of citizens
-
3:43 - 3:46to check the power of all three branches
of government. -
3:46 - 3:49And the jury trial itself has given
ordinary citizens -
3:49 - 3:52a central role in upholding
the social fabric. -
3:52 - 3:56So will the jury system in the U.S.
survive into the future?
- Title:
- What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas
- Description:
-
View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-happened-to-trial-by-jury-suja-a-thomas
In the United States today, juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court. At the same time, jury systems in other countries are growing. So what happened in the US? And could the disappearance of juries be a good thing? Suja A. Thomas explores both sides of this dilemma.
Lesson by Suja A. Thomas, animation by Globizco.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TED-Ed
- Duration:
- 04:12
Jessica Ruby approved English subtitles for What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas | ||
Jessica Ruby edited English subtitles for What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas | ||
Jessica Ruby accepted English subtitles for What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas | ||
Jessica Ruby edited English subtitles for What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas | ||
Jennifer Cody edited English subtitles for What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas |