In a country where the three powers are separated, such as the United States, its judicial power, executive power and legislative power are independent, mutually supervised and balanced, and its incumbent president and secretary of state may become defendants because of the intervention of judicial power.
Although the judicial power seems to be independent and will not be affected by government administrative orders, it still cannot fundamentally eliminate judicial corruption, so the jury system is adopted.
But even with the jury system, judicial corruption and well-known misjudged cases still exist. The most famous case is the Simpson case, which is called the trial of the century. Everyone knew Simpson was guilty, but he was acquitted because a white policeman invalidated the original valid evidence. Is this reliable?
The United States uses a jury composed of ordinary people to demonstrate the rule of law.
Since the victory of the American War of Independence, the United States has taken a road of democracy ruled by law. Therefore, the jury system has been written into the American Constitution, and all qualified people have the obligation to become jurors.
After hundreds of years of development, its jury system has become quite mature. Let the people participate, which is conducive to the people's profound feelings and grasp fairness and justice.
But what needs to be known is that the jury often only decides whether the suspect is guilty or not, and does not participate in the specific sentencing. The specific sentencing shall be mastered by the judge according to professional legal knowledge and professional standards.
And let ordinary people participate in judicial trials as much as possible, which is consistent with what they have always called democracy and the rule of law. This is also the most distinctive judicial system in the common law system at present. It can be said that the jury system ensures the practical application of American democracy to a certain extent, at least in form.
Is it reliable for ordinary people to be jurors?
Usually, in judicial trials in the United States, the composition of the jury is randomly composed. Under the auspices of the judge, with the participation of both the prosecution and the defense, jurors are selected, which makes it possible to manipulate in the era of big data.
It seems that the number of jurors comes from the reserve, but age, occupation, class and personal situation are still factors that can be referenced when selecting jurors. Lawyers of the rich will use their professionalism and controllability to judge the jurors who are beneficial to them and make a choice.
Of course, in most cases, the arbitrariness of jury composition determines the fairness and justice of the trial process, but when lawyers from powerful classes and big interest groups intervene, a simple jury will still have the taste of interest.
Especially in the American judicial system, lawyers' profit-seeking level and ability rank first in all classes, which leads them to try their best to win the case, and in this process, the jury will inevitably be directly or indirectly affected.
Although the purpose of the separation of powers system is to prevent the judiciary from becoming a tool of the government, the jury composed entirely of ordinary people can't avoid being dominated, so this system can only pursue fairness to a greater extent, but can't guarantee absolute reliability.
The jury system is generally conducive to the rule of law and fairness.
Because, in the United States, judging whether a suspect is guilty is completely confirmed by a jury composed of ordinary people, although they have not made a ruling on how the suspect decides specifically and what kind of punishment needs to be imposed.
However, the premise of the judge's sentence is that the suspect is guilty, and only the jury thinks that he is guilty will he take the next step. Then the jury can be said to have decided two directions of a case, which is an extremely important step.
In the process of trial, the principle that the minority is subordinate to the majority in civil cases is completely consistent in criminal cases, so that these juries composed of ordinary people can make correct judgments under normal intelligence. However, if the suspects and lawyers are concerned about the performance, there are also reasons to deceive the jury. Each juror has different knowledge, cognition and preferences, and the voting result may be unfair and ruled according to law.
Of course, it is difficult to win all juries, and it is also a felony, so the jury system in the United States is generally conducive to the rule of law and fairness.
The purpose of separation of powers is to effectively prevent the situation that power is greater than law. In practice, laws often collide in various ways, but no matter how perfect the law is, there are loopholes.
When a person's guilt is decided by a randomly composed jury, it is easier to represent the people's will in form and substance.
Although we have analyzed the possible advantages and disadvantages before, it is basically reliable for the United States to hand over judicial jurisdiction to a jury composed of ordinary people after hundreds of years of judicial perfection.