ABSTRACT

The jury is an institution that has evoked praise and criticism throughout its history. Recently, it has also triggered debate in many countries as they reform their judicial processes. Gathering data on 111 countries from various sources to analyse the jury as part of the judicial system, we find that public trust in the judiciary is higher in countries with jury trials than in countries without them. Countries that conduct jury trials also tend to have stronger judicial constraints on other sources of governmental power and better-performing criminal adjudication systems. These analyses reveal correlation rather than causation, but they are helpful for challenging conventional wisdom and for better understanding the function of the jury system. The seemingly paradoxical patterns that are identified — namely, that the jury, designed to constrain the judiciary, ends up correlated with stronger judicial power, and that laypeople, supposedly less proficient than professionals in deciding cases, are in fact positively associated with judicial performance — suggest an internal connection between the jury as a judicial body and as a political institution.

摘要

陪审团是一个在其历史上一直受到赞扬和批评的机构。最近，它也在许多国家改革其司法程序的过程中引发了争论。从不同来源收集 111 个国家的数据来分析作为司法系统一部分的陪审团，我们发现，有陪审团审判的国家公众对司法系统的信任度高于没有陪审团审判的国家。进行陪审团审判的国家也往往对其他政府权力来源和更好的刑事审判系统有更强的司法约束。这些分析揭示了相关性而非因果关系，但它们有助于挑战传统智慧并更好地理解陪审团制度的功能。确定的看似矛盾的模式——即陪审团，