미국의 민사배심제도에 관한 연구

In many countries, lay people participate as decision makers in legal cases. Some countries include their citizens in the justice system as lay judges or jurors, who assess cases independently. The legal systems of other nations combine lay and law–trained judges who decide cases together in mixed tribunals. Whatever the approach, a number of justifications for lay participation in the law have been advanced. Advocates claim many salutary effects: It improves decision making, reduces the effect of biased or corrupt judges, keeps the legal system in touch with community values, represents the diversity of citizen perspectives and experiences, and enhances the legal system’s overall legitimacy. The civil jury system insulates lay decisionmakers from judges during the deliberation process, and provides greater potential for lay input to determine legal outcomes. However, the civil jury has been the subject of sharp attack on grounds of its supposed incompetence and bias. Some critics argue that the complexity of today’s civil disputes is high and that a group of randomly chosen citizens is unlikely to fully understand the evidentiary and legal issues in such cases. These and other criticisms of the American civil jury trial have stimulated a widespread movement for jury reform. Reforms have included changing jury selection procedures so that a broader and more representative group serves on juries, and changing trial practice to promote the jury’s ability to comprehend the evidence.