All nations within the Anglosphere (US, UK, CA, AU & NZ) have JD imposed towards citizens. I know that the US & Canada both inherited that from Britain, which explains why they have it. However, should it be entirely only the judge making the conviction (some countries operate on a lay-judge system meaning juries aren't used, such as Finland or Japan for example) rather than leaving that decision up to jurors?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 1 month ago (1 child)

That whole "... of your peers" thing. Supposedly, it's harder to influence and corrupt 12 jurors than it is a single judge.

I have seen cases where the judge reversed the juror's decision, although I think that's really rare.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment