A Comparative Study of Jury Systems from a Global Perspective

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive comparative study of jury systems from a global perspective. It first examines the institutional evolution, practical characteristics, and existing dilemmas of jury or lay judge systems in common law jurisdictions (the US and the UK) and several civil law or hybrid jurisdictions, including France, Japan, Russia, India, South Korea, and Germany. The analysis reveals a spectrum of models, from the classic jury system (separating fact-finding and law application) to mixed tribunal systems (with judges and citizens sharing powers) and advisory systems. Key cross-jurisdictional challenges identified include the tension between democratic participation and professional expertise, cultural barriers to public acceptance, and the impact of modern technology. The study then investigates the development and current challenges of the People's Assessor system in Mainland China and the ongoing debate over public participation models in the Taiwan region of China. The concluding section synthesizes these global experiences, arguing that a successful public participation system requires clear legal positioning, substantive power for citizens, a scientific selection mechanism, and effective procedures. It suggests that China's reform should further clarify the division of labor between judges and assessors, strengthen assessors' independent authority, and optimize relevant mechanisms, drawing methodological inspiration rather than direct blueprints from foreign practices.