Criminal Law & Juries

The Jury plays an integral role in America's court system. As the judges' concomitant fact finder it carries upon it's shoulders the burden of judging fellow peers. A formidable task to say the least.

More specifically, juries play an important role in both tort law and criminal law but its responsibilities in the latter are far greater than in the former. This is because tort law and criminal law employ different standards by which to judge defendants.

The objective standard is the standard by which persons are convicted in tort law. The objective standard is a standard that judges a person based on how other reasonable people would behave under analogous circumstances. I've discussed this in previous posts. The reason courts use the objective test is because subjectivity is virtually impossible to prove. For example, if I asked you a question about what you are thinking, how do I know if you're telling me the truth? The courts confront this same problem. So instead of squandering time and resources to fetter truth from unscrupulous defendants the courts compare the defendant's conduct with social norms. If the conduct comports with societal norms no conviction, but if the conduct extends beyond societal norms, liability typically results.

The subjective standard, on the other hand, is the standard by which a person is convicted in criminal law. The subjective standard judges people based on what was going on in their minds (mens rea). Culpability in criminal law is based on the actor's intent. Criminal law uses the subjective standard because punishment thereunder treads upon fundamental human rights and before a government abridges basic rights of its citizens it better be damn sure the criminal was actually a criminal.

No different from the objective standard under tort law, the subjective standard is vulnerable to dishonest defendants. It's easy to be critical of a standard that wields enough power to impose death on a person based on subjective intent. But remember that courts rule on a multiplicity of facts, subjective intent being one of them.

And the rule is not without exceptions.

Exceptions exist under the subjective rule. Exceptions such as strict liability in public welfare offenses and other "violations" that carry nominal fines and punishment. Under these exceptions individuals can be liable without any evidence of subjective intent.

It is also true that like criminal law tort law has the power to tread on rights (e.g., forcing a party to pay damages to another party) but punishments arising from criminal law carry more social stigma and can incarcerate citizens and even put them to death. Consider the difference between an injunction to pay $10,000 in damages and capital punishment. Get the picture?

Well if you're a jury member you better because the court (and society) entrusts you to find the truth in criminal proceedings. That's a hard job when you have to unravel the facts and find the truth among a tangled mess. This important job carries immense responsibilities and shouldn't be taken lightly.