Thus is something I dont see discussed a lot, but I find somewhat interesting (as someone who isnt a lawyer).

Most of the world uses trial by judge, while British derived common law systems use trial by jury. I can see pros and cons in both systems but I wouldn’t mind hearing from other non-liberals on the subject

  • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    4·
    6 months ago

    My very ignorant opinion is that trial by jury doesn’t seem to make anywhere near the difference one might expect it to in terms of creating a more just system. I’d compare it to switching from a presidential system to a parliamentary system. It’s only a superficial change that doesn’t really make a difference with regards to the structural forces that produce the conflicts being resolved in court in the first place.

    • Comprehensive49
      5·
      6 months ago

      I agree. I will say that switching to trial by jury does result in some marginal improvement at the extremes. Even the worst cases of trial by jury, i.e. Jim Crow era, were reflections of the rot of U.S. society as a whole, while the most egregious cases of trial by judge can be caused by just one corrupt judge.

      Examples include:

      • Steven Donziger, who sued Chevron to force them to clean up their destruction (entire lakes and rivers filled with toxic oil) of the Ecuadorian rainforest from past oil drilling. Instead, Chevron got permission to hire a private judge, who made Donziger lose his law license, put him in jail, and pay millions in damages to Chevron.
      • Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, who sent thousands of kids to private prisons for no justifiable reason in exchange for monetary kickbacks from the private prison company