When you ask someone why you love America, you'll often get a blank look and then maybe a response like 'America is free, man. That is why.' It's an unusual thing as many do profess the love but without any particular reason; they have never seen anywhere else; they just love America.
There are many things that suck and I'm not shy about reviewing them but one that's been intriguing me is the jury trial. I was talking about it with Cat and trying to get some idea of differences in procedure between here and Germany. I can cheerfully report I finally stumped her on something and that's a win as it doesn't happen very often. I'm sure you can appreciate the passion of young love going off to research juries in an international context but we're wild that way. Call us crazy if you like.
Without doing any intensive research, America employs a jury process far more than anywhere else. The concept of a jury goes back to the times of the Magna Carta but the practice today has split quite a bit along national boundaries even though all clearly appreciate the value of a jury. For example, in Russia a juried trial will hand out an acquittal 15% to 20% of the time whereas a trial by judge alone will typically end in acquittal only 1% of the time. Juried trials are fairly common but only for criminal cases as opposed to civil cases. Most countries are steadily reducing the number of types of crimes that will go to a jury.
To delight and horror in America, juried trials have become extremely common and where this parts from the rest of the world is in the civil trials that go to a jury. As we've seen, these become tabloid spectaculars over and over whereas there is little to none of this type of thing elsewhere. Whether you regard juried civil trials as a delight or a horror is a judgment reserved for Americans as this isn't played much anywhere else. It is however one of the most profound defenses against the state and the corporate world and it is nearly unique.
In my estimation the juried civil trial is one of the finest things about America. The jury concept itself isn't radical as it traces back to Greece, if you like, for just about everyone. The application is the radical aspect and some may scream in horror at a huge settlement over some injury from a faulty product but there typically is no other protection and it doesn't exist much or at all anywhere else.
Sometimes there is mention of 'tort reform' and that's to put some controls on the levels of payouts in civil cases. Perhaps that's warranted but it seems like Monty Python legislation to prescribe a million dollars for a dead body unless it's a young dead body and then add half a mill. A hundred grand for any appendage other than the writing arm which gets another fifty percent. That sort of thing is rubbish. It's all very well to talk of tort reform but how one would implement it would give legislators something to argue for the next century or so. The key aspect to it is there is little to no call to do away with the juried process for civil trials.
What started this thinking was that I was called up for jury duty one time and I was asked one question: do you support capital punishment. I replied that I did not and that was it. You're out. That was about thirty years ago and I was never called back up again although I've always had a driver's license, always been registered to vote, etc.
My thinking is that the way juries are selected is a flaw to the process as the courts have made such an immense deal out of selecting impartial juries that there are now consulting specialists for hire who can advise on the best way to select prejudicial juries. This may not be such a terrible thing as both teams (i.e. defense and prosecution) get to interrogate the potential jurors but it still smells fishy to me.
Despite the flaws, the court system may well be the best in the world.
There are many things that suck and I'm not shy about reviewing them but one that's been intriguing me is the jury trial. I was talking about it with Cat and trying to get some idea of differences in procedure between here and Germany. I can cheerfully report I finally stumped her on something and that's a win as it doesn't happen very often. I'm sure you can appreciate the passion of young love going off to research juries in an international context but we're wild that way. Call us crazy if you like.
Without doing any intensive research, America employs a jury process far more than anywhere else. The concept of a jury goes back to the times of the Magna Carta but the practice today has split quite a bit along national boundaries even though all clearly appreciate the value of a jury. For example, in Russia a juried trial will hand out an acquittal 15% to 20% of the time whereas a trial by judge alone will typically end in acquittal only 1% of the time. Juried trials are fairly common but only for criminal cases as opposed to civil cases. Most countries are steadily reducing the number of types of crimes that will go to a jury.
To delight and horror in America, juried trials have become extremely common and where this parts from the rest of the world is in the civil trials that go to a jury. As we've seen, these become tabloid spectaculars over and over whereas there is little to none of this type of thing elsewhere. Whether you regard juried civil trials as a delight or a horror is a judgment reserved for Americans as this isn't played much anywhere else. It is however one of the most profound defenses against the state and the corporate world and it is nearly unique.
In my estimation the juried civil trial is one of the finest things about America. The jury concept itself isn't radical as it traces back to Greece, if you like, for just about everyone. The application is the radical aspect and some may scream in horror at a huge settlement over some injury from a faulty product but there typically is no other protection and it doesn't exist much or at all anywhere else.
Sometimes there is mention of 'tort reform' and that's to put some controls on the levels of payouts in civil cases. Perhaps that's warranted but it seems like Monty Python legislation to prescribe a million dollars for a dead body unless it's a young dead body and then add half a mill. A hundred grand for any appendage other than the writing arm which gets another fifty percent. That sort of thing is rubbish. It's all very well to talk of tort reform but how one would implement it would give legislators something to argue for the next century or so. The key aspect to it is there is little to no call to do away with the juried process for civil trials.
What started this thinking was that I was called up for jury duty one time and I was asked one question: do you support capital punishment. I replied that I did not and that was it. You're out. That was about thirty years ago and I was never called back up again although I've always had a driver's license, always been registered to vote, etc.
My thinking is that the way juries are selected is a flaw to the process as the courts have made such an immense deal out of selecting impartial juries that there are now consulting specialists for hire who can advise on the best way to select prejudicial juries. This may not be such a terrible thing as both teams (i.e. defense and prosecution) get to interrogate the potential jurors but it still smells fishy to me.
Despite the flaws, the court system may well be the best in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment