notes on judicial system

The distinctions of law in different countries are very conspicuous. So are the distinctions of judicial system. One of the most conspicuous distinction is the jury which is widely used in countries ruled by common law. The jury system is initially devised by the Greeks and ever adopted by Roman. And later most European countries adopted jury system. But for a variety of reasons some of them abolished jury system. The failure of jury system in these countries may be attributable to social customs, culture characteristics and political system.

Nowadays the most successful case of the jury system is in the United States. In fact, many Hollywood movies and courtroom dramas produced in the United States show some aspects of jury system. I'd like to list some timeless works I've ever seen in another blog. Now I just wanna jolt down my understanding about jury system.

Linda, a writer, ever write a book about American judicial system. In the book, Simpson's case is elaborated in very detail. And the author made a metaphor I think is very appropriate. He said, the judicial system in the US is like a football match. The defense attorney represents the accused person to cast reasonable doubts or overturn the evidence against the defendant. The district attorney represents the prosecution to provide as much evidence as possible to prove the defendant guilty. Cross examination is used by two sides of attorneys to clarify the scenario of the case. The judge controls the trial process. If any side asked irrelevant question or made irrelevant request, the judge can overrule or sustain the question or request. During the trial period, the jury is isolated from the outside and is supposed to make an objective verdict according to the evidence presented on the court. In most criminal cases all the jurors should reach an unanimous judgment to make a verdict. In some civil cases the rule of majority is used.

The democratic characteristic of the jury system is very evident. The essence is that the accused should and can be judged by those have the same social status with him in a just procedure. All jurors are randomly chosen from local registered electors and two sides of attorneys should reach a consensus about the list of the jury. It is no wonder that in some cases even when the defendant lost the case he still insisted that he was judged with justice.

Such a democratic system is not without problem. Actually we can clearly see the problem from Simpson's case. Until today most Americans believed that Simpson was guilty. However, the jury announced that Simpson was not guilty in the final verdict because the dream defendant attorneys brought forward some reasonable doubts which were partly caused by the prosecution side. So we can say, a notorious murder escaped justice under protection of the judicial system which most Americans are proud of. Maybe this system is too democratic. If there is no jury or the jury is not responsible for the final verdict, Simpson would definitely be announced guilty. The democratic system make it harder for the jury to reach consensus. This is the cost of democracy. But on the other hand, the democratic system make it harder for any force of authority to abuse power and lead to injustice. The founders of such system must have thought of this problem but they finally insisted on this system because they thought that preventing good men from injustice outweighed letting criminals at large.

Besides the problem of the democratic process of the jury, each juror, as key roles in the judicial system, is vulnerable to the influence of public opinion. Although each juror is supposed to make objective judgment according to what he saw and what he heard on the court, the infiltration of mass media, the argumentation of attorneys and the opinions of other jurors all may have an impact on one's judgment. The herding mentality inevitably takes effect in the jury. The movie Runaway Jury showed that how the jury is manipulative although the process may be a bit fictional but it is probable in reality.

In china, the reform of judicial system is on the agenda. And the civil juror is installed on court to participate in trial process. Most of them are selected from the middle class or the so-called elites. But the role of civil juror is more like assistants of the judge. They don't make the verdict independently. It is too early to say how these civil juror will influence the practice of justice in China and what's the next step to go. The same devise may appear in different way in different places. So let's just wait and see.