The jury system that evolved in England, and rightfully viewed as a milestone in the development of modern notions of procedural justice, was seen as a `right of Englishmen' and transported to its colonies around the world. Although use of the civil jury has diminished, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the criminal jury continues to play an important role in the justice systems of more than fifty countries and territories around the world. This volume presents in-depth coverage of the jury systems of Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, Scotland, and the United States. Coverage includes civil as well as criminal juries. There is also a chapter on the newly revived criminal jury systems of Spain and Russia, and a chapter on potential revival of the jury system that once existed in Japan. Each chapter is authored by leading scholars who are intimately familiar with the jury system on which they write. An introductory chapter provides a historical sketch of the development of the jury and a conceptual framework for comparing todays various jury systems. In addition, a final chapter surveys forty-six other contemporary jury systems in Africa (e.g. Ghana, Malawi), Asia (e.g. Sri Lanka, Hong Kong), The Mediterranean (e.g. Gibralter, Malta), The South Pacific ( e.g. Tonga, The Marshall Islands), South America (e.g. Guyana, Brazil), the Carribean (e.g. Montserrat, Barbados, Jamaica, the Turks and Caicos Islands) and Europe (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Norway). The book will be of enormous value to scholars and students of comparative law regarding the role of the jury in democratic theory and the effects of legal culture and procedural systems. It will also be of interest to practitioners and policy makers. The chapters provide important insights regarding how different countries address pressing and controversial issues such as `free press versus fair trial', pretrial publicity in the information age, racial, or ethnic prejudice, peremptory challenges, unanimity rules, complex evidence, and jury competence.
