What happened to trial by jury? - Suja A. Thomas
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- View full lesson: ed.ted.com/less...
In the United States today, juries decide less than 4% of criminal cases and less than 1% of civil cases filed in court. At the same time, jury systems in other countries are growing. So what happened in the US? And could the disappearance of juries be a good thing? Suja A. Thomas explores both sides of this dilemma.
Lesson by Suja A. Thomas, animation by Globizco.
The main problem with juries is most people don't want to be jurors so they are looking for the quickest, easiest out. I got called once, I found it interesting. I studied the whole trial AND the other jurors. I said the right stuff so I didn't get dropped. Turned out to be an older couple pulling a big horse trailer were rear-ended by a semi with a sleeping driver. Fault was already set, we had to decide how much their race horses that died were worth.
Everybody but me was ready to just give em' "glue factory" prices and get the hell out. The trucking company hired some famous Kentucky guy to come and say they weren't worth glue. I made them find out what races they've actually been in, scheduled for, potential purses, how much it costs to raise and train a race horse for however many years etc......
They're all pissed. I just asked..."what if it was YOUR stuff and YOUR livelihood destroyed through no fault of your own?"
Aaaaaand? You're really just going to leave us hanging?
ua-cam.com/video/21pXdfnBLmk/v-deo.html
What does "glue factory" as an expression mean?
@@theodore23sanchez They make horses out of glue. Hence "glue factory" prices
@@alwaysdisputin9930 other way around lol
The fact that they didn't follow up the last question with "The jury's still out on this one" is a crime in itself
The real problem is that "right to a speedy trial" went out the window decades ago and people know they will rot in jail for years before ever seeing a trial.
You should really watch this Pauly Shore movie called Jury Duty. It's hilarious. Lol
People are to afraid and to poor to fight the system that's been designed to suppress us and keep us down.... this is NOT what our Fore Father's had in mind!
not only that there is soooo many cases that it's almost impossible for a speedy trial covid did not make that any better
the real question: what has happened to trial by combat?
Along with "trial by ordeal" it was dismissed in favour of trial by jury, because people decided that God was too busy to be judging trials on earth. Both trial by combat and trial by ordeal were based on the idea that God would favour the innocent, so if you lost you must be guilty.Trial by jury gained popularity, not because it was considered fairer, but because it was considered less bothersome to God.
What does god have to do all day, can't he really not do a little bit more effort.... He made a planet, i would think that juding a trial by combat is not that hard for him.
^Except that God doesn't exist. And a rapist can go scot-free after he murders yet another person.
I just said it would take little effort for him to judge a trial of combat
eventhough i don't believe in god, i made the comment to prove that a trial by combat doesn't take too much effort and that god could easily do that because if he can create a planet or milion of planets he can judge a couple of trials by combat and there is no reason for me bring my beliefs in to this it would be pointless information. Otherwise the comment would be: (What does god that doesn't exist have to do all day, can't he if he existed really not do a little bit more effort.... It was said that he made a planet, i would think that juding a trial by combat is not that hard for him if he existed.) This version of the comment is just alot of pointless information, you don't always have to say if you talk about god that he is fake.
I think trial by combat was human made not god made. Why would God want his own creation to fight each other?
this video makes me think of 12 angry men, one of the greatest movies ever made
Me too :)
I also liked the movie: The Verdict
@M.B you and your 12 dads should watch it for a movie night
I think the book was better than the movie.
@@feynstein1004 p80pp0⁰
I prefer trial by combat #WinterIsComing
WeArePharmers exactly my thoughts
In my college roommate agreement we agreed to trial by combat to solve any and all disputes among roommates
Winter has come, my friend.
I make science video check out my chan nel and give it a like !
welp... now spring is coming! xD
everyday a new video?
Ted ed is on fire!!
Rajat Tiwari u jinxed it
i know :p
sorry though.
the fire extinguished :p
But then it gets to the question of "Should the average citizen have a say in a legal case?" And I can see both sides having justified arguments.
Clockwork Physicist Nothing is justified against a jury. Jury is in constitution and therefore be utilised
RazaGaming-Destiny But there are a lot of factors which can prevent justice from being done, such as lack of civil knowledge on legal proceedings and law in general, media bias, or even emotional rulings. The will of the people is good for everyday canon and life, but when it comes to justice and fact then it's not such a good thing. And that's not even starting on the concept of Mob Mentality.
Clockwork Physicist As someone from Germany, a country that doesn't have juries I totally agree. I mean, I think we are fine and a nonexistent jury doesn't make any mistakes. Also, letting people who don't really know anything about the law system decide over a person's future is definitely more than questionable. But still, there are many trials that would've ended more to the satisfaction of the public if a jury had been involved.
Still: If juries are part of a countries constitution, this should be used. Something in between is not an option.
Kangaroo courts can fuck over innocent people too.
There is the problem where someone did something illegal but for a morally right reason. They would be charged guility but a jury could charge them innocent.
Juries MAY? make errors? That's an understatement. The reality is that a random average person in a group will fall prey to many cognitive bias and fallacies. As much as the idea of detachment of interests may foster a sense of blind justice, the net result is negative.
that's a lot of assertions. judges are subject to those same biases, why does increasing the number of people involved not reduce the effect of biases? what would you suggest other than detachment?
any citations you would like to share?
Firaro Cognitive bias gets stronger with more people because there is also the social bias, unless you separate the juri. One person alone, given that they make an effort, has a better chance to take those bias into consideration. Also, you can't know whether those chosen will be aware of all the problems. The judge is, of course, subject to bias as is all human justice, but I would rather focus on educating individuals so that they can judge better than to select a random crowd. My point is that we are better off relying on education(doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise it or that it is perfect as of now). I have no citations I'm afraid
social bias exists, yes, but if you're going with the crowd cause most of the jury believe something well... that still requires most of the jury to be of that opinion which is better than putting all your hopes on one person. or one jury member could convince them all, but that requires him to have a convincing reason or be very charismatic. if it's cause he's charismatic then at worse the jury is effectively one person, same as the judge.
judges may be well educated yes, but the jury are likely to be informed of relevant information, and the judge is still involved able to provide his education to help. but the judge is biased, he wants reelection. and he can be bribed or threatened but it's harder to do those things to a jury as they're less publicly known and because there's more of them.
plus if there's a 1% chance he messes up, that means 1/100 cases will suffer from that. but if there's a 5% chance eahc juror messes up, well it still requires half of them to mess up at the same time, which is less likely than that the judge will mess up
im just unconvinced that single judges are better than multiple jurors. though i am convinced that human judgement no matter how used can have errors
The chance of making good decisions isn't really directly proportional to the number of people making the decision. People aren't particularly logical, so the idea that it would be hard to convince them of something clearly wrong or that is actually uncertain is not solid; people everyday make bad group decisions. However, I do agree with you that more people can mean different points of view, some that may have gone completely unnoticed. But instead of a set of random people I defend a multitude of professional or semi-professional judges, as long as those judging have a good educational background in law. Of course, that wouldn't be so for every case, but I suppose juries aren't practical to have at every session either. With regards to the probability you used, I want to point out that when judging, it's not as simple as A and B, there are a multitude of possible decisions, so juries are even more likely to be wrong, because now you must also attend to the wrong possibilities to which a more educated judge is virtually immune. For example, imagine a set of 20 possible outcomes, one is right and that one of them has been chosen for each case of a set of 1000 hypothetical identical cases: the judge may choose between 7 of those in the overwhelming majority, but the jury, being generally less educated and experienced, will chose between 11, so that alone broadens the chance of being wrong apart from the lessened competence in judging each possible outcome you talked about.
Kind of off-topic: The argument that the majority opinion is not correlated with well thought out and based-in-solid-knowledge opinions is along standing one against democracy, one that goes back to at least to the time of Socrates when he critiqued Greek democratic decision process(that wasn't very inclusive then, but still). And this is not a bad argument, in fact, history has backed it up time and time again. The problem is: what is the alternative? This is not really relevant to the discussion, I just thought it would be cool to make a connection.
Lucas Ribeiro
Well you are right that if you can compose the jury of better people then that improves things. But im skeptical a professional jury would truly be better less-biased people. And m skeptical of the wisdom of giving so much power to a select few, this seems like the path to semi-oligarchy. One might think meritocracy, but once those with merit take power they'll do what they can to ensure they and their friends/descendants keep it, irrelevant of merit. This is already happening in politics but more power and less checks wont help that.
Additionally these people have agendas, they want to keep their jobs and impress their coworkers and over time might partly homogenous opinion in their field. This will affect their rulings. Random jurors still have biases and agendas but far less, these other jurors they never have to see afterwards, their jobs dont hang in the balance at all, these are likely to be people of differing perspectives
Yeah, democracy sucks, but it sucks less than all other options. I hate giving power to idiots, but it's a requirement of democracy. Just kind of wish people would stop encouraging everyone to vote, let those who dont care and havent researched not muddy the voting out of obligation if they dont want to. Let those who care and researched be a greater percentage of the voters, just by power of self-selection.
I hadnt known that bit about socrates, interesting
Money and Bias happend and boom our legal system is shit now
The thing is, I personally think that money is a bad way of doing things, as it causes bias and greed, but I also can't think of a single different (realistic) way of doing things.
+Direwolf202 nope....democracy knows how to correct itself..
The Soviet Union was truly a communist country. So is North Korea.
But the Soviet Union wasn't a democracy and neither is North Korea. Much like the concept of trail by jury where someone must be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Democracy offers the oversight and ensures laws are fair and made according to the will the people those laws affect.
A sort of Utopian Socialism can work, but many of us are so constrained in our thinking that we can not understand that Socialism is an entirely different system to what we have at the moment. We wouldn't even use the same measures of success that we do in capitalism.
Liberal Resistance Yeah that's pretty much the answer to everything
Jury duty was really awesome, actually. I probably would have felt differently if it was a more heinous crime than alleged robbery. I was an alternate juror though, so I was dismissed before it came time to vote. Everyone there seemed to take it really seriously and were respectful. Sure, we're not trained lawyers or judges, but we had a great judge who was fair and explained the law very clearly to us. As a juror, you don't have to understand all of the laws--just the one or several that have been allegedly broken
One of the major problems is, as the video points out, that plea "bargains" create such a threat of retribution that innocent people are coerced into guilty pleas. Mainly these pleas involve paying hefty fines to avoid jail. Very profitable for the county.
Another problem is that in many jurisdictions, judges primary goal is to extract fines for the purpose of financing the local government, and anyone with the temerity to plead innocent and cost the county, or other local government, money must be severely punished for not just paying the extortion and keeping quiet. Not all judges or courts operate like that, but far too many do. The Judges, Prosecutors and even the Public Pretenders might as well be working on commission.
The main problem with the judical system is the fact they would rather up hold "the letter of the law" even if someone got saved by someone who shouldn't have been around them in the first place. "The letter of the law" has no ease, leanincy, or common sense, written to it.
@@vander9678 I'm talking about when people are heroic or end up being a hero & because of stipulations they have on them, they still end up getting prosecuted regardless of the heroic deed done.
plea bargaining corrupts the justice system
That's correct. But keep also in mind that jury court makes the justice system dysfunctional.
not really
This is needed in Family Court. Especially Relocation of Children and Termination of Parental Rights!
Thats what this video saying. You're biased to liberal ideas. But I'm conservative. I have different ideas. So judge makes decisions. Especially in political correctness
So how to request a trial by jury in family court
@@ccpoundher5268 Unfortunately even though the constitution requires it, in most states you can’t get trial by jury in family court, except in Texas.
You should've ended it with "the jury's still out on that one"
Missed opportunities.
@Perpendicular Driving "What?" I believe he's talking about esprit de l'escalier
@Perpendicular Driving esprit de l'escalier = "Used to refer to the fact that a witty remark or retort often comes to mind after the opportunity to make it has passed.
‘I am frequently afflicted with esprit de l'escalier.’
‘Now if I'd managed to say all that off the cuff then I would be a genius comedian, but as it was I had to make do with experiencing esprit de l'escalier on the way home.’
Origin
French, literally ‘wit of the staircase’ (i.e. a witty remark coming to mind on the stairs leading away from a gathering)."
www.lexico.com/en/definition/esprit_de_l'escalier
@Perpendicular Driving "the jury is still out
PHRASE
A decision has not yet been reached on a controversial subject."
Don't ask me to explain humour. It defies logic. Somehow it's amusing to end the video with a phrase that relates to the subject matter of the video
The art in this episode was incredible!
It was like watching a movie!
after years of wasting time on UA-cam finally I got my channel ted ed these is the best channel on youtube
the animations are simply beautiful. hats off to the animator!
What happened to Ted Ed Riddles ?
I mean they just aren't that frequent
AMEY :D they never really were that frequent
AMEY :D I loved his riddles
AMEY :D
the guy who came up with them is in jail right now.
Batman is such a kill joy 😒 lol
rissarae3 how do you know that?
LoriFluffyFluff Music
Nah I made a joke. Riddler makes riddles. Riddler is a Batman villain, get it 😉
I’d be more interested in seeing a study on how often juries “get it right.” Just because it has a long tradition doesn’t mean using juries is the best way to solve legal disputes.
Juries can't get it wrong. That's kind of the point.
jurys that "get it wrong" come down to poor lawyers. if the lawyer who was defending you fails to convince the jury of reasonable doubt then their is a good chance you did it.
I mean it’s likely the jury got the OJ verdict wrong, but the prosecution blew it. At the same time the defense made that trial about race and the jury bought that hook line and sinker.
Right. Because new DNA evidence has NEVER overturned a wrongful conviction. Nope. Nothing to see here.@@untrueman
@@shayhicks7682 white americans first started misusing juries lol
Am I the only one to see that the judges in the last looked a lot like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton....??
No
hillary would be a crook in jail and trump would be a crook still free
I did not see Hillary there...
I think they have trump there to represent a branch of government, but I don't think it's supposed to look like hillary.
Boldevin i thought the same
I'm dissapointed that I couldn't even find ONE Ace Attorney reference...
Ah, well, this isn't really a reference-heavy channel anyway...
Bring back trail by combat 🔪
How interesting it would be if professional MMA fighters will be the hired combatants. That would be more awesome and thrilling to watch than any "sports entertainment" has tried to do! (Well.. as long there won't be any "death match" involved. Since that's not cool to watch, not cool at all).
I think it's a good idea because righteous people will fight to death for their rights, just like how people fight on how guns don't kill people, people will become more enthusiastic in hitting the gym in order to win if one day they should be in trial, and not to forget that guilty people are mostly masterminds, their big brains but small muscles makes them has no chance in winning.
Luke Skywalker guilty people are mostly masterminds? Have you been living under a rock for all your life?
yeah. i mean, no musclehead has ever killed a person with his hands.
and the gang violence is also mostly done by academics.
and there are also no academics that ever visit the gym. (just fyi, i'm studying physics. a guy in my courses competes in strong men competitions)
Does that guy involve in criminal activity?
From a country that doesn't have a jury system, this is mind-boggling to me.
Why would someone who doesn't know the law interpret it? Krazy
Jury merly decides if the defendant is guilty and what should the sentence be. There is not a lot of law interpretation to be done. There is still a judge in the trial to make sure everything is carried out according to the law.
@@maciejchmielewski2293 "jury merely decides if the defendant is guilty" will you please elaborate more? I'm really curious about this system
@@clarkevander Well, as a juror, your job in a trial is to sit and listen what is happening in the court. All physical "output" you produce is basically filling a form at the end of a trial in a form of 1. Guilty? Yes/No. 2. How many years / $$$ should the fine be?
Of course the question about being guilty is formed according to the case and can be devided into multiple sub-questions. But still - they are not "law" based, but rather a question of what your perception of the case is. Like "Do you think that the employer terminated the contract with the employee with an intended malice?"
@@maciejchmielewski2293 oh so it's like the jury are just the ones who determine if there is intent?
Who else thinks the middle guy in the last scene looks a lot like Trump?
That character is supposed to represent the Executive Branch of the US Government (POTUS), they went with a caricature of Trump. Nice touch.
Trial by jury is just unfair and I don't see how it is not biased. The average citizen is not qualified to be judging, and more importantly, is not qualified to seek for the truth which should be the most important thing. Sadly, I haven't heard of a legal system that looks for the truth, but for presenting a case to influence the jury's/judge's opinion (almost not caring about what actually happened - the whole jury selection process is not about selecting the most impartial people, but the ones that might be most biased in favor of the position you are going to defend-).
Juan I wouldn't claim that. Here in Austria we have some form of jury (for harder cases like murder) and it works fine. Of course it's biased but i think it should be that way. We all have a common sense of justice. Also, a jury obviously cannot give an unconstitutional punishment. I don't think a jury can be less manipulated than a judge and also if so it doesn't really matter since the judge propose the jury his suggestion before they come to a judgement
+Andreas Egger I agree with you that the jury can be manipulated similarly to a jugde, and I am not sure if we share a common sense of justice, but that is not really my point. Perhaps (very likely) I was not clear. What I was trying to say is that the most important thing should be finding out the truth, if the people accused did commit or not the crime s/he is being judged upon. There should be people specialized in finding out that (perhaps more than one group that investigates the case independently), something that I don't see a jugde or common people in a position to do. The judge should only be there to say what sentence should be carried out according to the law if the accused is found gilty, and that is it. Then the common people should not decide the sentence either, but also people with special studies that can determine what is best for that specific case. The main purpose of jail is to reform and reintegrate people into society, so that should be the main goal of the people that determine for how long the criminal should go to jail. Lawyers should not even exist in this case. But the system is not built upon the objective of finding out the truth, and that is my main objection to this whole thing. And then we put people to do jobs they are not qualified for and where lives are really being affected.
The Jury basically has to agree with the Judges if you want a guilty verdict. Only problem could be jury nullification but then again, there is the question wether this is a problem itself.
It´s there to check the court.
Also, you do not need a jury as much as plea bargains are a gigantic problem.
In Germany we do not have a jury but we sometimes have something else, the "Schöffen" which are basically apointed as assisting judges from outside the judiciary profession.
But most importantly, our courts don´t get circumvented on a grand scale.
+Sir Castic agree that the plea bargains are a big problem since I don't think that they care much about the truth either. But I could be wrong...
In Argentina we have only one judge that decides everything. Interesting that thing of the "Schöffen". If you don't mind teaching me, how is that "Schöffen" apointed, what skills must s/he have to be able to assist the judge and how does he do it (does he participate on the veredict, only in what punishment should be given, in both, or his assistance is in another area)?
I wouldn't say trial by jury is unfair. It's how the court system works overall. Unless there is undeniable proof, then knowing the truth is impossible. This leaves the only option which is trying to convince them that what you say is the truth.
The art in this episode is very good, please hire and keep that artist for future animations
Good video, but I think the way it is made clearly suggests that juries are necessary for a frair trial, I personally don't think that is the case.
In fact I would argue that a trial is better of without a jury if the judicative system is working properly.
I would like to point to my own country for that, here in germany we don't have juries yet our judicial system seems very indipendent and properly working to me. This is of course only my personal impression and I would definitly not claim that I have any authority in this field at all but I think one might be biased to think something is universaly better even if it might only be under special circumstances, like trial by jury in a country like for example the US where the judicial system functions a lot less smoothly than desireable, that is why I made this post.
But all in all great talk and it is also great that ted-ed seems to be uploading more recently.
I know you don't.
But I would like it to be otherwise (like with uncountable other things in the world)
Well, to be fair, we do have Schöffen here in Germany
Serving on a jury here in the US made me rightfully fearful of ever being judged by one.
Sizano Green
Really?
What about the rapes and murders caused by the migrant invasion?
It's a Sexual Emergency!
I love all these grotesque depictions of trump and other politicians. It really adds to the atmosphere.
...
I don't see where he's a good president, but okay.
TheRamenGryphon I don't see why he's a bad president either, but okay.
I find it hard to believe people SERIOUSLY can't see how Trump is doing well.
Well, in my opinion, I can't really say he's doing horribly. I don't agree with some of his morals however, he is fulfilling what he said he would do during is campaigning. Therefore I have some trust in what he may be in the future. He may be a horrible person to some but at the least he keeps his words, to some degree.
I'm from Europe and I graduated from law school. I know and work with judges and prosecutors. I seriously don't understand trial by jury. It's unnecessary and people in the jury are not qualified to decide if someone is guilty or not. I just don't get it.
ensa89 You're probably right, which is why America is trying to get rid of it
In dubio Pro rio.
It is better to release all the criminals than put an innoccent man in the punishment.
In my opinnion, Jurors are necessary as the verdict of making people guilty or not need both consent of Judge and Jurors in order to guarantee the certainty
As someone currently in an American law school, I would say a lot of it has to do with an inherent distrust of the government. Every judge is the product of politics, either by election or appointment, and much of the U.S. Constitution is designed to limit the power of the government.
The general thinking is that a jury of unbiased peers is better suited to come to the correct decision than a judge who may have an agenda. Since both plaintiff and defendant have broad leeway in dismissing potential jurors, the idea is that you root out the bias, and since they don't have legal training, can decide the case based on the facts and the law (though in matters purely of law, a judge can sometimes throw out a case). A judge by contrast usually is not from the community, or is of a much different social class then those involved. Their opinion may be jaded, or they may be seeking re-election on something such as a "tough on crime" platform.
Also, fun tidbit, since juries have total immunity against repercussions for wrong decisions (unless corruption is involved), and the principle of double jeopardy, they are also able to declare a defendant innocent even if all the facts and law say they are guilty. Some would argue this is a good thing, allowing the people to protest unfair or immoral laws (for instance, many Northern juries acquitted men who helped fugitive slaves escape), while other see it as improper and prone to abuse (such as when other juries acquitted members of lynch mobs).
check how Indian legislators are stripping off citizens taxes and crippling the judiciary, executive and media. Jury system is very much needed in India
ensa89
It's only purpose is to check corruption.
Anyone here due to Depp vs. Heard?✨ #justiceforjohnny
I love Ted-ED it's one of the coolest Channels on UA-cam
I can think of a lot of cases that really don't need a jury, like the Jim Sterling case that ended recently. However, employer discrimination cases just getting dismissed is pretty fucked up.
MoeLestingYou
Not really. Judges know that most cases have zero evidence and stand no chance at proving a crime. Why waste tax dollars when most cases have no chance at winning, because there's no way to determine the truth?
That's the real reason conviction rates are going up- prosecutors are refusing to prosecute any case that doesn't have solid evidence. That's why people who are obviously guilty get off all the time. Prosecuters won't take the same cases to trial that they used to. They only want the ones they should win (and the 10% of cases they lose are only the cases where something went wrong).
The deck is stacked
Dank,TED, voor de vertaling in het nederlands. Zo kan ik genieten van uw interessante zendingen!
The art in this one was spectacular
*"Impartial Group of Citizens"* Hmm...
Where can we find an impartial group of citizen anymore? It's like a real life anti-hero
so because of the constitution, people have been scared into admitting guilt with a lesser criminal sentence... what a terrible system
It's because if they are convicted through trail by jury. They get the maximum sentence.
Because of Supreme Court decisions*
@★ Froggie Animation ★ It does but in the US you are basically punished for going to trial. Most countries plea bargains are exceptions and not the rule.
@@thechosenone1533 yes because most people don't have the resources to fight the government
Speaking of juries in USA... India too had a jury but after the RUSTOM PAWRI case the jury system was abolished. The reason was the jury system too was biased. You can even learn more about that case in the movie RUSTOM.
So those are the ones Amber Heard constantly look at....I bet they turn their faces away
A jury is way to easy to manipulate - it's just not a good way to judge somebody anyways.
If u can prove it u can get a retrial tho. But yeah TV exaggerates it. Witnesses are easier to tamper with.
Marco Onyxheart You don't have to have a jury. It should be something you should be able to turn to if you don't trust the appointed, but you don't have to have one.
A BAD one at that! Smh
G
People can choose to not have a jury, it’s up to the accused of they want one or not.
You missed the opportunity to say "the jury is still out" after the last question.
I think its so weird, that random people decide over your fate. They aren't professionals. The emotional aspect is way to important and thats why the people on trial try to be likeable.
It is still better your fate is decided by one person. You don’t have to be professional to look for facts. That’s why jury is called finder of fact, and judge is call law expert.
@@daniellai7712 I don't understand your comment. I rather have my fate decided by people which were trained oO like in every other job. I don't know any other country which chooses random people and calls it jury.
you do have the right to forgo trial by jury and instead have the judge handle the verdict, that would be called a bench trial. the advantage to this would be the fact that the judge can run the trial faster.
Because a jury is just like you. Many judges run promising to be "tough on crime" so they very rarely acquite. A jury does not care either way so is more likely to acquite you. @@LittleSkyful
@@LittleSkyfulTrained in what? The job of juries is to determine what occurred in a variety of different circumstances. You can't be trained in that. Training in the law doesn't tell you whether someone is lying about what they did. If there were a methodical way to determine things like that when there is conflicting circumstantial evidence then we wouldn't need juries. It's like saying "let's eliminate democracy and replace it with a system where a smart person makes good decisions. And we'll train them in being right." The world is nowhere near that simple.
Plea bargaining in the US is pretty much skewed in favor of the prosecution.
In many other countries, it is the accused/defendants that initiates/moves to undergo plea bargaining subject to certain rules and conditions.
The animation is top tier
The artstyle here is beautiful.
In my opinion jury’s don’t work. Judges are schooled to think independently and rationally. Jury’s however are just random citizens and can be more easily influenced by emotion. I also think even more proof for this is the fact that some of the best legal systems in the world do not have jury’s.
Judges in this day and age are ideological driven screwballs.
We don't have a jury and the judges support rapists.
Since it is required by the constitution, yes, trial by jury will continue, indefinitely. There's no need for a jury if a defendant is willing to admit guilt, but it's always an option if they maintain innocence or wish to protest an unjust law.
the drawings/animations of this are fantastic
I love this animation! Wish I could give more likes.
When I clicked on this vid I thought they had to be kidding. Where I live my husband and I get called almost every year for jury duty. There have even been a few occasions where I was call twice in the same year (although they’re not supposed do that). And I’ve already served on two juries.
Hi I have a question as previous Jury? What would be your verdict between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp?
Great art style and compositions. Simple and direct information. Awesome!
The caricatures they had representing the three branches of government was gold
Edit: 3:42
Man! Founding fathers were such smart group. Defend your constitution America! you owe it to them.
I love these and more riddles!
Beautiful illustrations! Great job!
Juries still exist for all crimes here in the UK. It's a better system for everyone.
Being British I was really surprised by this. It’s just in absolutely everything in Britain.
i love this art style.
No mention of the Alford plea?
Not as long as attorneys are allowed to manipulate the jury selection with cherry picking based on companies that data mine potential jurors. Not as long as attorneys are allowed to string along trials making them last weeks or months longer than necessary. Not as long as judges are allowed to serve for life. Not as long as a jury is made up of people who are uneducated, unemployed and have nothing better to do because sitting on a jury can cost a person their livelihood. Not as long as people are extorted to sign away their rights to get medical treatment. Not as long as baseless, waste of time, frivolous lawsuits are allowed to go unpunished. No, our trial by jury of our peers will not survive.
this could not have come at a better time. now I see some reasoning behind jury duty.
Loving the artstyle in this video.
Huh, the animation got better and cooler. Awesome.
Awesome animation.
wow
this really goes to show we all still have lot to learn
We don’t have a jury in India, the lawyers present the case to the judge(s) and they make a decision. Also, unlike the US, the judiciary is separate from the government/political parties, so you can expect them to act like a third party. However, in practice, especially in recent years, the job’s getting politicised, so. We used to have a jury system until they let a murderer walk free because he managed to convince them that it wasn’t *really* murder because his wife cheated on him.
Rustom
Why would you trust random citizens with the judicial power?
Entrust such power to the judges, who have studied Law.
I like this narrator's voice.
I don't know about you, but those Laws are written so ambiguously that you could interpreted them any way you want....
So, it has nothing to do with "justice".
This is needed in Family Court. especially Relocation of Children and Termination of Parental Rights!
Bring back Trial by Combat
Just hope the person suing you is not Brock Lesnar! lmao
Let the gods decide my fate
beautiful design of the judges!
Wow, the choice of images there didn't make it seem at all like there was specific direction the video creators wanted to you lean, did it?
It`s a shame that the justice system relies on so many plea deals as they are often advantageous as well. Leaving most with the option to plead guilty to crimes just to mitigate risk is completely wrong.
I don't get the American jury system. Where I live in Switzerland there are people that know the law and criminology that make the the decision not some random people who rely on intuition . So mainly only a couple (multiple!) judges. The defense team and the prosecution team from the state and also a psychologist or Psychiatrist. I would be horrified letting some random citizens make the decision about sentencing. How can you be okey with this? 😳
Holy shit the animation in this video is fantastic
I remember "runaway jury" with this
A citizen’s right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.
Fundamental right itself is mentioned five times in the Constitution: Once in the original text (Article III, Section 2) and four times in the Bill of Rights (in the Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Amendments).
When any of our rights are violated we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state.
According to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance, "The overwhelming majority (90 to 95 percent) of cases result in plea bargaining."
love you ted ed
Amazing video, learned more in this vid than in an entire semster of goverment class.
Okay, to everyone that disagrees with the jury system, a person can choose to not use it, it’s an option if the person thinks that their fellow citizens will see that they are guilty or innocent.
Most people try and get out of jury duty and don't really care about the process. It can be difficult to get enough people together who are willing. That might be part of why a jury is used less now.
The problem with jurys is for long cases members can lose their business if self employed as they are away for a long time and also jurors lose job opportunities that come up while there on the case
Matthew Blairrains tell me about it I have to go to jury duty tomorrow and I don’t want to I have to miss a presentation and an exam because of this.
Loving that art style.
I did'nt know how problematic the US law system was...
Such a stunning animation style, that's really effective
The paintings are incredibile!
Trial by jury was a fine idea...in the year 1158. In civilized countries it's professional judges (appointed, not elected) who decide trials.
At 1:13, did they honestly put in a picture of a growing trial by jury cases in China? CHINA?
Love this video, thank you so much!
The problem is that there's too much crime...
Therefore we need less laws.
Agreed. Unless it wasn't a joke.
Was I the only one expecting a "well the jury's still out on that one" at the end?
Same thing that happened to _Princess Ida_ and _Utopia Limited_ - it fell by the wayside in favour of _The Pirates of Penzance_ .
what you said about summary judgment is misleading, It's often used when the facts aren't even in dispute and that the issue is one of law, and therefore gives no job to the jury.
Selected Jury should be educated and unbias
Some people state that jurys are bad because we can't expect a bunch of citizens to understand law. That is the thing about trial by jury. The jury can actually decide the the defendant is guilty of breaking the law but that the law is unjust and thus the defendant will face no repercussions. The jury doesn't need to know the law but instead they need to have an internal sense of what is right and wrong and thus can override and thus void unjust laws. Also the selection process for jurors should eliminate extremists.
What'd the difference between grand jury and a jury?
0:51 Why is the constitution in the background only consisting of the Lorem Ipsum?
Such a weird thing...in my country we have only a judge or a few judges
yeah I don't trust juries at all, because the jury will always be wrong, instead why not have a bar system or just regular reviews of cases instead of letting people who don't have the training and education to make life or death decisions?
I believe summary judgment exist because too many people try to get out of going to jury duty. They want the privilege of having a jury but then they don’t want to participate as a member of the jury. The thing about summary judgment is that you can appeal them and The appeals court I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.