Abstract
AbstractThis paper argues that lay jurors should be given a more extensive position in making decisions about misdemeanour cases. The paper constitutes a qualified defense of the 2011 judicial French reform. This reform associates two extra jurors to the already existing three magistrates in charge of misdemeanour cases. Two arguments are presented in favour of this measure. The first argument is that increasing the number of decision‐makers improves the accuracy of verdicts. I call this the argument from quantity. The second argument is that fostering more identity diversity between decision‐makers tends to improve the quality of group decisions. I call this the argument from diversity. The argument from quantity and the argument from diversity are supported by the more general idea that one of the chief rationales of any judicial system is that of ensuring the defendants' equality of protection.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
