English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I know that it is stated we have the right to a trial by Jury of our peers. But where and when and who got it started the way it is?

2006-12-09 14:22:17 · 4 answers · asked by hey2a 3 in Politics & Government Civic Participation

Not trying to do research, just wanted to see what people thought.

2006-12-11 19:19:35 · update #1

4 answers

It goes back to the greeks and romans. The Greeks had juries of 101, for public laws. They were a truer democracy. The Number 12 may be a reference to the Apostles or Disciples.

2006-12-09 14:25:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Every citizen in ancient greece was a membor the the jury ( the 12 thing was the rulers for day to day stuff.)
It was basically a popularity contest and the best speaker ( or the least annoying) won. This led to injustice since socrates was more annoying then his accusers. Since this was by simple majority there was no conception of "beyond reasonable doubt." They even voted on the punishment and since the prosecution suggested death and socrates suggested he should be given a pension the votes naturally went against him. A modern jury decides only guilt or innocents ( note, it is different in civil matters where they allso decide the damages and somtimes in capital matters where they may choose the death sentence or suggest it to a judge)
We didn't get this straight from the athenians as the "jury" in common law countries in early times were actually witnesses from the local are who new what was going on and could explaine it when the judge rode into town ( you've heard of circut courts, they used to actually ride a circut and cases where delt with when the judge showed up - by that time petty ones were probably forgotten and more serious ones were probably already dealt with).
Go do your own research.

2006-12-10 22:16:40 · answer #2 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 0 0

The first answer was good. But I though it was 1001. The point of an odd number was no ties. The did not require a unanimous verdict. The large number was to prevent bribery. Who could afford to bribe that may jurors.

2006-12-10 09:30:39 · answer #3 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 0

Here are some sites with detailed info on this:

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/wf/htj.htm
http://www.mow.uscourts.gov/jury/history_jury_duty.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/04.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/jury-trial

2006-12-09 14:25:24 · answer #4 · answered by GAD&OCD_Girl 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers