The two recent jury decisions dominating the news — to acquit Kyle Rittenhouse and to convict the Ahmaud Arbery killers — underscore the importance of juries in our justice system.
And they call attention to the fact that most European countries, except for Britain, do not use juries in criminal matters.
The difference in the use of juries is key to understanding the merits of the American system of justice and the flaws in the European model.
Americans trust a jury of their peers to make vital decisions about criminal justice. But Europeans, apart from those in the United Kingdom, place no such trust in their peers and instead vest the power to determine guilt or innocence in their judges who are, in turn, tightly bound by very specific laws setting policy in almost every imaginable circumstance.
We use juries. They use appointed judges and elected politicians to mete out justice.
For those who would hold European countries up as an example of well-run societies, we need only to cite the differences in the use of juries.
Europe follows the legal system established by Napoleon Bonaparte where the judge applies the law, assesses who is telling the truth, renders a verdict and imposes a sentence.
There is really almost a merger between the roles of prosecutor and magistrate. The continent has no faith in ordinary citizens to make these decisions.
The genius of the American system, which dates back to the early days of common law in Britain, is that it rests on the fundamental principle of trust in ordinary people.
Does the American criminal justice system work?
Amid the virtual civil war raging today throughout our country, many held their breaths as these two cases neared verdicts.
Would irrational woke hatred of conservative, law-abiding citizens and fear of a backlash from the mob lead the Rittenhouse jury to find him guilty?
Would the backlash against anti-white racism and criminal justice reforms that are really pro-criminal lead to excusing yet another murder of an innocent black man at the hands of a white mob?
Nope. Justice prevailed in both cases.
And, at the same time, we witnessed, all too graphically, the foibles of granting judges and legislators too broad a mandate in handling criminal prosecutions.
The decision to let Darrell Brooks out on $1,000 bail after he ran over the mother of his child was an obscenity — as was the soft-on-crime legislation that enabled this ridiculous bail.
These travesties should serve as object lessons in how elected and appointed elites can lack sufficient common sense to do justice, something our juries do quite well. No jury would ever have let Brooks out on such bail.
During this Thanksgiving season, let’s be grateful for the jury system that works so well and does so much to preserve our rights on the one hand and promote social cohesion on the other.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.