Juries convict more leniently than judges would in criminal cases

Evidence

But if the decisions of judges and juries generally coincide, does it not make sense to dispense with jury trials, which may be costly and time consuming, and allow judges to decide all cases? According to advocates of jury trials, the costs of eliminating trial by jury far outweigh the benefits (see Box 5.3). According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83, “The strongest argument in [the jury’s] favor is that it is a security against corruption.” Others have insisted that the jury is valuable because it provides one of the few opportunities Americans have to participate directly in government. In addition, analysis of those instances in which the judge and jury disagree suggests that the jury brings a distinctive perspective to the administration of justice. According to The American Jury, in civil cases juries do not consistently favor either the plaintiff or the defendant. However, in criminal cases, juries are more likely to rule in favor of defendants, acquitting them or hanging when the judge would have convicted or convicting the defendant of a lesser charge. This greater lenience in some instances reflects a willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to defendants without a criminal record, but in others it reflects a rigorous interpretation of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. Jury nullification also plays a role. Jurors sometimes refuse to convict when they disagree with the law or when they believe that defendants have already suffered enough for their wrongdoing. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 891

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Criminal juries systematically convict less often than judges would in identical cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1439; Juries may convict of lesser crimes than evidence warrants through sympathy — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1741; Impending elections make trial judges sentence criminal defendants more harshly — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 431 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Criminal juries systematically convict less often than judges would in identical cases #expands (0.98) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1439
• English law kept harsh public punishments while juries quietly grew lenient #exemplifies (0.83) — Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish- The Birth of the…, 50
• Juries may convict of lesser crimes than evidence warrants through sympathy #qualifies (0.78) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1741
• Judges decide law while juries decide facts and apply it #qualifies (0.74) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1409
• Impending elections make trial judges sentence criminal defendants more harshly #complicates (0.72) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 431