The presence of a jury is sometimes required in trials because it ensures a fair representation of society in the judicial process, and provides a democratic dimension by involving citizens in the decision-making process.
In some trials, the presence of a jury is required to ensure impartiality. Jurors, randomly selected from the population, bring a diversity of perspectives and experiences that can help avoid biases. Their impartiality is reinforced by the fact that they are not legal professionals and are not directly involved in the case. This diversity can prevent any bias or external influence, thus providing the parties involved with a fair and balanced trial.
The presence of a jury in trials allows for a representation of the diversity of society. Indeed, jury members are randomly selected from a list of citizens. This means that the jury is composed of individuals from various social, cultural, and economic backgrounds. This diversity ensures a variety of perspectives and viewpoints during deliberations. Jury members bring their own experiences and sensibilities to the discussions, which can enrich the debates and contribute to a more balanced decision-making process. The presence of this diversity also helps to strengthen the legitimacy of the verdict, as it is the result of a collective deliberation reflecting the plurality of society.
The use of a jury trial reinforces the legitimacy of the judicial system by directly involving citizens in the decision-making process. By allowing ordinary members of society to participate in a trial, justice appears to be rendered on behalf of the people, thus strengthening the legitimacy of the verdicts rendered. This citizen involvement demonstrates the transparency of the judicial system and promotes public trust in justice. Furthermore, the diversity of a jury's members reflects the varied composition of society, thereby reinforcing the representativeness and legitimacy of the decisions made.
The role of the lay juror involves significant civic responsibility, sometimes even requiring the juror to refrain from discussing the case outside the courtroom, in order to avoid any external influence.
Popular jurors generally only sit in particularly serious criminal cases (such as in assize courts in France). In most other legal situations (civil disputes, minor offenses), only professional judges determine the verdict.
In France, jurors are selected by drawing lots from the electoral rolls and must meet several conditions, such as legal age, French nationality, and the absence of serious criminal convictions.
In some countries, the jury can reach verdicts by following the rule of unanimity. In the United States, for example, some states require the unanimous agreement of the jurors to declare a defendant guilty.
In general, it is possible to contest a decision made by a jury, usually through an appeal process. However, the appeal is not directly based on disagreement with the jurors, but on procedural issues, alleged judicial errors, or the emergence of new and important evidence after the initial judgment.
Generally, any adult citizen who meets certain criteria (age, nationality, absence of a criminal record, proficiency in the local language, among others) can be selected to serve as a juror. However, certain professions or statuses may lead to an exemption (for example: lawyers, police officers, elected officials, etc.).
The refusal to serve as a juror without a valid reason is generally punishable. However, certain valid reasons (serious medical issues, obvious conflicts of interest, significant family obligations) usually allow for an exemption, at the judge's discretion.
The decisions of the jury are usually made after a collective and confidential deliberation. Depending on the judicial systems and specific cases, the decision may require unanimity or a qualified majority. The jury foreman ensures that all jurors express themselves and argue their position before the final decision is made.
A lay jury is generally made up of ordinary citizens selected randomly, while a court consisting solely of professional judges is composed of legal experts. The lay jury thus provides a diverse, impartial, and independent perspective on the facts of the case, whereas a court of professional judges relies mainly on in-depth technical expertise in the law.
0% of respondents passed this quiz completely!
Question 1/5
