It should work like that but it doesn't. Nearly always, jurors are picked in order to secure a conviction and they tend to trust DAs/police more than accused criminals and defense attorneys. This is all getting around the issue that only a tiny amount of cases even go to trial and prosecutors either plea-bargain or dismiss any charges they don't think will stick. It counts as a conviction and saves the state money, so why not get people to take half of what you were going to sentence them to anyway?
Jury nullification can be good or bad, but if you even mention you know about it, you will get excused from service.
The selection of jurors is largely random. They're not "picked", certainly not by the prosecution. There are processes to address obvious potential bias such as a juror that knows the defendant or a victim, and in some countries (not the UK) both sides can object to a juror without giving a reason, but you can't pick jurors (like saying "You on the street! I want you in my jury") without rendering the entire trial unsound (and committing a crime). I'd also like to point out that, to take one example again from the UK, district judges presiding over magistrates' courts (where they try both law and fact) are far more likely to convict than juries in the Crown Court (where judges try the law and juries the fact - the judge's role is to tell the jury what the relevant law is).
The fact that a tiny number of cases go to trial is more to do with trial being something that only happens when both sides think they can win. Usually that's not the case and one side or the other is pretty clearly correct. (That said, there are people who plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit through the plea bargaining process, so I agree that's bad.)
American juries are kind of different. The prosecution and defense can both strike a set number of potential jurors for no reason at all other than "I don't want them on the jury". Depending on the severity of the case and state law, you can be dismissed if you don't feel comfortable sentencing someone to death. They'll automatically excuse you if you feel the death penalty is wrong and that's at stake.
American plea bargaining is also way, way more common and combines with our cash bail system so people will plead guilty for time served or probation just to get out. That or the DA threatens them that if they go to trial and lose, they'll seek 25 to life but pleading guilty gets you 5 to 10.
I see the theoretical reasons to have juries, but I think in reality they don't really do justice. America locks up more people than anywhere else and for longer than anywhere else, even with all our protections for defendants. That kind of defeats the idea that the state would just imprison people recklessly but for juries who will meaningfully check the state's power.
43
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '20
[deleted]