谁来决定杰克逊的命运

　　The trial of pop star Michael Jackson is the latest US legal spectacle to capture the world's attention. My Chinese friends are puzzled by one aspect of the case -- the role of the twelve jurors in deciding Jackson's fate. How, exactly, does the jury system work?

　　The jury traces its roots back at least 1000 years as part of the English legal tradition. Before the jury, judges relied on God to determine guilt, subjecting the accused to tests thought to require divine intervention. They might, for instance, force a defendant to hold a red-hot stone. If the burn healed quickly, "God" had revealed his innocence; if an infection developed, he was guilty. As these arbitrary techniques were discredited, the courts were forced to find something new, and stumbled upon the jury. If a defendant could find "a few good and honorable men" to attest to his innocence, he would be set free. In pre-industrial England, this system worked because communities were close-knit. It was expected that townspeople would use their knowledge of each other to help the judge determine the truth. From these beginnings, the idea developed that ordinary citizens, sitting as a "jury", be called to pass judgment on their peers.

　　Today the jury is expected to be impartial, and serving on the jury is one of the rights and duties of citizenship. Citizens are selected for jury service by the court in their city or town. Each week the court sends a notice in the mail to a randomly selected group of citizens requiring service in the "jury pool". Rules limit citizens to jury service once every few years, and in most places citizens serve far less frequently -- perhaps once a decade. When they arrive at the court, they are chosen by lottery for one of the cases starting that day. The judge, or in some cases the prosecutor and the defense attorney, then question potential jurors to ensure that they would decide the case fairly; anyone with a bias is disqualified.

　　The jury has sole responsibility for deciding which side is telling the truth about the "facts" of the case. During the trial, the prosecutor and the defense lawyer both present evidence and arguments to the jury. The judge ensures that the rules of procedure and evidence are followed in the courtroom, and can address the jury to make sure all members understand the relevant laws. After hearing the testimony of witnesses and viewing the evidence, the jury retreats to a private room to reach a unanimous decision of "guilty" or "not guilty".

　　How can we trust ordinary people, who lack specialized legal training, to decide a criminal case? Citizens use common sense in their daily lives, and we ask them to rely on that same common sense when they assess the evidence they hear in court. The jury system provides an important protection against abuse of power by government officials. The right to a jury trial prevents police and prosecutors from locking someone up without first proving to a group of ordinary citizens that he or she deserves punishment. If the jury says "not guilty", then the courts and police must release the defendant. And to establish guilt, the jury must come to unanimous agreement -- if even one juror disagrees, the defendant cannot be found guilty of the crime.

　　The jury system promotes other important social goals. Though jury service is mandatory, most citizens say that they enjoy the experience, and that it enhances their knowledge of the legal system. Juries also reflect our belief in the value of ordinary citizens' participating in government. Along with voting, passing judgment on one another is the most direct way citizens can participate in self-governance.

　　But these values come at a cost. Juries are expensive and we only use them in the most difficult cases. Though every defendant has a right to a full jury trial, in most cases the defendant simply admits guilt in return for a lower penalty -- a system we call "plea bargaining".

　　The system has other flaws. The biggest practical issue is ensuring that the jury is truly made up of the defendant's "peers". Certainly Michael Jackson is an unusual figure, and not exactly an "ordinary" citizen, even in California. Some have questioned whether a defendant with unusual habits or views can get a fair trial. Furthermore, until a few decades ago black Americans were regularly judged guilty of crimes by all-white juries, and women could be judged by twelve male jurors. Though juries now draw members from all sectors of society, social problems like discrimination can still distort their fairness.

　　Of course, in some cases juries simply make mistakes. The last US trial to attract worldwide attention -- the OJ Simpson murder trial -- is thought by many to have been wrongly decided. Yet most Americans believe that a few mistakes are worth tolerating in order to obtain the overall fairness that the jury system promises. Is Michael Jackson guilty? Only the jury can decide.