Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 15 - The Case for a Hybrid Jury in Europe

  • from Part IV - Global Perspectives on Lay Participation
  • Edited by Sanja Kutnjak Ivković, Michigan State University, Shari Seidman Diamond, Northwestern University, Illinois, Valerie P. Hans, Cornell University, New York, Nancy S. Marder, Chicago-Kent College of Law
  • Book:
    Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
    Published online:
    03 August 2021
    Print publication:
    29 July 2021, pp 304-322

  • Summary

    This chapter traces the decline of the traditional jury across the criminal justice systems in Europe and argues the case for a hybrid jury to take its place. The chapter contrasts common-law and civil-law systems and considers why the jury has been a remarkably enduring institution across common-law systems but has been less successful in being transplanted onto continental European soil. The chapter also identifies certain pressures in common-law systems that have led to calls for the jury to be made more accountable. The chapter then argues that, against the background of a growing convergence between procedural systems, a case can be made for adopting a modern hybrid jury across Europe that retains the key feature of the traditional jury, namely that laypersons decide the verdict, but combines this with the need for the jury to provide some justification for its verdict.