The origin of jury system can be traced back to the sixth century BC. Solon, a famous politician in ancient Athens, carried out a series of reforms, one of which was the establishment of a citizen jury court named Herrier. Jury judges are selected from Athenian citizens who have reached the age of 30, and then take turns to participate in the trial of cases in a certain order. The number of jury judges participating in each trial is about one tenth of the total number of jury judges in the court, and the jury judges vote on the trial results by throwing stones into the ballot box. The judicial power in ancient Rome originally belonged to the people's assembly, and each case was tried by 30 to 40 judges. Judges are all elected from among citizens and re-elected once a year. [Note 2] This mode of mass collective trial contains the ideological and cultural origin of the jury system to a certain extent. This system came into being under a specific historical background. Athens and ancient Rome, as the main cradles of western culture, are both democracies, and all kinds of affairs are settled by collective decisions of freemen. This model has a far-reaching impact on judicial activities. We believe that the exercise of judicial power by the people's assembly composed of all free people is the inevitable product of the primitive democratic political system at that time. However, this outstanding civilization achievement in the eyes of contemporary people has disappeared with the development of history-the development of centralization does not allow this democratic jury system to exist.
In terms of strict judicial system, the modern jury system originated in medieval England and was inherited by other common law countries. 1066 With the Duke of Normandy successfully conquering Great Britain, the ancient Norman habit of setting up juries in trials was also brought to Great Britain. Jury was first used in the process of cleaning up the land by the king of England in the early 20th century. In the process of cleaning up, the investigator appointed by the king must call 12 local insiders to thoroughly understand the local land situation, which is called "land survey". On this basis, King Henry II of England promulgated a series of decrees (such as the Imperial edict of Clarington and the Imperial edict of North Hampton), which formally established the jury system in civil and criminal proceedings.
The jury system has been fully developed in the United States. Due to the special kinship between the United States and Britain in history, the United States has learned the British jury system very well, and at the same time, the United States has reformed the British jury system, which has made the jury system grow unprecedentedly, making great differences between the common law system and the continental law system.
Characteristics of juries in common law system;
1. The jury is composed of ordinary citizens.
These ordinary citizens have neither received professional legal education nor judicial experience. The Jury Law promulgated by Britain 1974 stipulates that all voters registered in parliamentary or local government elections, who are between the ages of 18 and 65, have lived in Britain for more than five years since the age of 13, and have not been deprived of jury rights due to crimes or cannot participate in juries due to professional restrictions, can serve as jurors. There are similar provisions in American law. Judicial work is so important that it cannot be monopolized by a few professionals, which is based on the legal concept. Let some citizens participate in judicial activities with the feelings, common sense and judgment of ordinary people, which can not only better understand the thoughts and behaviors of the parties, but also help to promote public confidence in the law.
2. Before the trial, the jurors had no prejudice to this case.
On the one hand, jurors are different from professional judges. They have their own careers. They can't and won't investigate the case before the trial. Therefore, at the beginning of the trial, the jurors did not form any internal beliefs about the case. On the other hand, it is also determined by the selection of jurors, who are selected from ordinary citizens who meet the statutory conditions. This universal selection method ensures that jurors are unbiased about the case to be tried.
The jury is always a bystander in the process of litigation.
As we all know, the Anglo-American legal system pursues the litigant mode, in which both parties are in a dominant position and decide to summon witnesses, cross-examine and cross-examine witnesses independently, and the judge only passively presides over the trial activities according to the regulations. Juries are more passive than judges. In the whole trial, except for the final judgment, the whole duty of the jury is to sit quietly and listen to the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, without having to supervise whether the arguments of both sides are in line with the law like a judge.
4. Jurors independently exercise the right to adjudicate facts.
After the jury makes a verdict, they will return to the court and announce their verdict on the facts of the case and who won the case. Of course, because the jurors have no professional training, the judge must explain the relevant legal issues to them, but he cannot try to control the jury or seize its authority. Judges and juries exercise their functions and powers independently, and judges must accept the verdict of the jury.
The jury system is a system in which state organs absorb ordinary citizens to participate in the trial of civil and criminal cases. Jury system is widely used in judicial practice all over the world. According to its different forms, it can be divided into jury system and jury system. The common law system, represented by the United States, mainly adopts the "jury system". Under this system, the jury is responsible for finding out the facts and the judge is responsible for applying the law; The civil law system represented by France adopts the "participation system", and there is no clear division of functions between judges and jurors. They * * * form a collegial panel, * * * to review the case and vote on the decision.