Justice of jury trial vs. trial by judge. ( Archived) (11)

In the USA, one of your constitutional rights is the right to a judge by a jury of your peers if you are charged with a criminal or civil offense. You can, of course, opt for a trial by judge, as well, but then you're risking your freedom and/or resources to the decision of one person instead of a panel. That sounds like a really stupid risk to take and I had accepted it as such for most of my life.

But is a judge trial really more likely to result in an erroneous and unfair verdict than being judged by a panel of your "peers"? That's a rhetorical question, of course. And the answer, I think, would be "it depends". If the case revolves around circumstantial evidence, points of law and somewhat complex logical arguments, then a jury of your peers would only be more fair if your "peers" consisted of logical and rational people such as yourself, provided you, yourself, are logical and rational.

Trusting in a system where your very life and future are dependent on the decisions of others, it's a bit scary to realize that your jury will likely include people that believe the illuminati rule the world through secret organizations and that 9/11 was an incredibly complex and brilliantly executed plot performed by those at the highest level of the US government, all despite the fact that there is absolutely NO rational reason to believe such a thing or to even suspect it. That means that these same people, who are likely to be sitting on your jury judging you for a charge brought against you by the state could just as easily draw an erroneous conclusion about your case, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

We have a very good system of justice with as many personal protections in place as we can reasonably provide and the jury system beats the hell out of a dictatorial system where the government has the right to be your judge, jury and executioner without any recourse. But still this huge flaw in the trial system results in innocent people going to prison and guilty people going free.

If I'm ever in such a situation as to be put on trial for something, I'm beginning to think the chance of a fair outcome of justice would likely be better served by having one man with a proven track record of logical analysis and legal comprehension making the decision based on the evidence and rule of law than in a jury of 12 people selected randomly from the pool of qualified voters. The same pool of registered voters that include countless conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job and that no man ever really walked on the moon.

Maybe a good lawyer could identify and weed out that type but I wouldn't bank on it. Just a little contemplation, food for thought and fuel for discussion.

Brilliant idea! I think that would be excellent, but as you say, I can't imagine what it would cost to guarantee a trial like that. I think it would result in a significant increase in the likelihood of a just outcome, though.

I agree. It is impossible to eliminate errors in justice as long as it must be administered by human beings. The best we can do is minimize those errors and rapidly redress them when the errors are, in fact, revealed as such.

The US doesn't have a perfect system by any long, long stretch of the imagination. However, I don't know of any that are superior and I know of many that are alarmingly worse.