If this question is left to the Chinese to answer, some people will ask in this way, "If a criminal who commits a crime with a knife is prosecuted, should we also investigate how hot the knife seller is?" "When you have an egg? Later, why should you care about what this chicken laying eggs looks like?” In fact, Chinese people are deliberate on many issues, but if Chinese people always like to simplify the problem on a moral level, the crux of the problem will come out. We will point to wherever we are, but we have ignored what caused the crux. Will it reappear after the solution is resolved this time?
If this problem happened in the United States, the manufacturer would not be held accountable before, but now this kind of problem may be held accountable. Many people say that the United States is a country where everything is possible, even though certain things are at the beginning. It seems so incredible. Having said that, what is it that makes this possibility possible in the United States? The answer is the jury system, this kind of trial system that originated from the United Kingdom and finally flourished in the North American continent. The film "Out of Control Jury" tells a case about the jury system. A stock dealer was shot and killed at the same time when he went crazy two years ago. Two years later, the wife of the stock dealer sued the giants of the gun manufacturers. The court demanded huge compensation, which led to an extremely difficult and thrilling trial. In the United States, the defendant can apply for trial by a judge or by a jury. If the defendant applies for a trial by a jury, the judge has only the power to pronounce a verdict, and the final ruling is in the hands of the jury. The jury in the United States is randomly selected by the court based on the phone number. Those who are drawn must accept the call of the court. In the end, all the people who are selected by the court can stay after the unanimous consent of the lawyers of the plaintiff and the defendant. Generally speaking, the jury The number of members in the group is controlled at 12, and there is also a 12-member alternate jury that will be added once the main jury is out. During the trial of the case, the jurors must be isolated to prevent any form of interference. Having said this, let’s go back to the case. There have been many shooting cases like this in the United States before, but in the end they all ended up in the victory of the gun manufacturer. In this movie, the major manufacturers spent nearly 10 million. The US dollar hired Lan Jin, a famous psychologist, to win this case for him. Lan Jin has formulated different policies according to the weakness of each jury. What makes the film wonderful is that some people on the jury are also swaying the jury, and the two sides have a life-and-death contest. At the end of the film, it was confirmed that the juror’s sister had died in a shooting case. He was only for an explanation, and the final outcome was that the jury ruled that the manufacturer lost the case.
In this case, we are not only concerned about the winning or losing of the case itself. The jury only needs to make a final verdict without giving any reason. So why is this case so interesting? In the trial cases in the United States, as long as there is a precedent for a certain similar case, and the professional name is "precedent", it will be easier to resolve such cases in the future. Therefore, in this case, as long as the gun manufacturer is judged to lose, there will be more innocent people like the plaintiff winning in future cases. In fact, this approach is very common in the United States, especially in anti-dumping and countervailing investigations against China. China's methods are generally very covert, but Americans are smarter and call the jury to determine. The jury will determine whether a third country constitutes dumping against China. Note that the jury is in charge of the verdict. They don't need to describe the details. As for why, they think the Chinese know better than anyone else. Therefore, once the court is held, because of the precedents, it is definitely a certainty that a Chinese company loses a lawsuit.
No system is perfect. In this case, the phenomenon of jury being bribed can be said to be very common. The most important thing is that the jury is randomly selected and the personnel are uneven. The issue of storage and abolition has also been extensively discussed. But recall that, as the American judge himself said, "Is there a system worse than other countries?" From this point of view, although there are problems, it is still the most fair and effective compared to other countries. of.
At least now the jury system in the United States is controlled within a controllable range, because sometimes justice does not only depend on the fairness of the law and the selflessness of the judges. This society also needs a moral trial. The precedents themselves are for justice. It is not just the elite's law. It is born to protect civil rights, and it must be upheld by civilians.
View more about Runaway Jury reviews
