한글초록:본 논문은 미국배심원제판 제도를 중심으로 연구 하였으며, 향후 우리나라의 사법개혁이 있을 경우 새로운 제도(배심재판)에 도입의 가능성을 타진하였다영문초록:The U.S. jury system, like that of the common law more generally, has its roots in England. In its original form, juries were used by the Crown to gather information for prosecuting alleged criminal. Later, juries evolved as decisionmakers in both criminal and ...
한글초록:본 논문은 미국배심원제판 제도를 중심으로 연구 하였으며, 향후 우리나라의 사법개혁이 있을 경우 새로운 제도(배심재판)에 도입의 가능성을 타진하였다영문초록:The U.S. jury system, like that of the common law more generally, has its roots in England. In its original form, juries were used by the Crown to gather information for prosecuting alleged criminal. Later, juries evolved as decisionmakers in both criminal and civil contexts. In this process, juries moved from being handmaidens of royal authority to bulwarks of liberty, acting as a means for ordinary citizens to resist excessive demands by government. In their capacity as jurors, ordinary citizens essentially could make legal doctrine. In the United States, in colonial times, jury service was common for community residents and viewed as an essential instrument of governance and a strongly unifying experience for those who served. That view was a key reason why the right to a jury trial was included in the U.S. Constitution. After the Revolution, however, the view of the jury gradually changed: juries were no longer seen as a means of governing, but instead as essential bodies for counterbalancing the growing power of judges and the fear that power could be abused. Indeed, as the country matured during the nineteenth century, power shifted away form juries to judges, who increasingly controlled the procedures and outcomes of disputes and trials. Nonetheless, the jury still continued to be an important force in shaping common law, especially for tort actions, or when individuals sought compensation for the injuries they alleged were caused by other individuals or corporations. The right to trial by jury is firmly established in the Constitution of the United states. As adopted in 1789, the Constitution provided that the trial of all crimes except impeachment shall be by jury (: U.S. Constitution Art. Ⅲ, §2). Two additional provisions were added in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures a person accused of crime a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and the district where the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have previously been ascertained by law." This provision merely amplified the right protected in the original Constitution. The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right in federal civil cases: "In all suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Constitutions adopted by the original states also guaranteed the right to jury trial. A similar assurance was provided in the constitution of every state that subsequently joined the union. Today the right to trial by jury is protected in some form by both federal and state law. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases must be recognized by the states as part of their obligation to provide due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction. A jury is a body of laymen selected by lot, or by some other fair and impartial means, to ascertain, under the guidance of a judge, the truth in questions of face arising either in a civil or criminal proceeding. A common law jury is summoned from the vicinity, duly examined and sworn to try the cause on the facts presented by the evidence introduced at the trial. In civil cases, the right to jury trial may be waived by unilateral act of the litigant. The jury as an institution came under strong attack in the early years of the twentieth century, with opponents challenging its composition, procedures, and even its right to exist. These criticisms stimulated a series of empirical studies of the ways juries worked. The jury of today in the U.S. legal system has a mixed heritage. On the one hand, juries have been assigned a wide range of tasks, including the assessment of business morality, protection of the consuming public, the definition of key Constitutional rights, and the determination of questions of life and death in criminal cases. On the other hand, the jury system continues to be the target of reform proposals. Some of these have already been adopted: in many jurisdictions, juries can be fewer than twelve persons in size, unanimous verdicts are not required, questioning of jurors during voir dire has been limited, and the right of the parties to make peremptory challenges where no reason need to be given has been restricted. The civil jury as an institution is net invincible, as demonstrated by the fact that it disappeared in England in the years between the First World war and the Great Depression. If the jury in the United states is not to suffer the same fate, its importance to democratic values must be appreciated and significantly broader reform efforts resisted. This paper aims to introduce the history, characteristics, and the face-finding and punitive damages assessment functions of the U.S. civil jury system and to further research the current debates on improving its competence. As any society progresses, the development of a social institution is deeply affected by its constituents to reflect the unique views and values of the community. The focus and benefits of this research is twofold: Through researching the U.S. civil jury system, one can learn a great deal about the effects and implications of the social realities reflected in the system. Also, understanding the subtle strengths and weaknesses of a well-developed institution in another country will provide a unique insight and a different perspective to reviewing the development and effectiveness of similar institutions of our own. The U.S. civil jury system has created following characteristics of the U.S. legal system: The emphasis of logic and appeal to reason in substantive law, adoption of adversarial system with strong emphasis on oral pleading, and the development of highly sophisticated laws of evidence such as the principle of the exclusion of hearsay evidence. Overall, the U.S. jury system has become one of the characteristic social institutions of American society, along with he federal system of government and the diversity of its citizenship. A solid understanding of the U.S. jury system will aide in implementing the civil procedure and alternative dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration in Korea where the fact-finding process is a crucial element. This study of a well-developed institution will provide insights in the selection and qualification if fact-finders, especially arbitrators, as well as deliberation and control over the resulting agreement. Reviewing the various problems and challenges in the U.S. jury system will also provide a new perspective and create a new methodology for recognizing characteristic problems facing fact-finding processes. Such informed viewpoints will prove useful in researching our own system of dispute resolution
한글초록:본 논문은 미국배심원제판 제도를 중심으로 연구 하였으며, 향후 우리나라의 사법개혁이 있을 경우 새로운 제도(배심재판)에 도입의 가능성을 타진하였다영문초록:The U.S. jury system, like that of the common law more generally, has its roots in England. In its original form, juries were used by the Crown to gather information for prosecuting alleged criminal. Later, juries evolved as decisionmakers in both criminal and civil contexts. In this process, juries moved from being handmaidens of royal authority to bulwarks of liberty, acting as a means for ordinary citizens to resist excessive demands by government. In their capacity as jurors, ordinary citizens essentially could make legal doctrine. In the United States, in colonial times, jury service was common for community residents and viewed as an essential instrument of governance and a strongly unifying experience for those who served. That view was a key reason why the right to a jury trial was included in the U.S. Constitution. After the Revolution, however, the view of the jury gradually changed: juries were no longer seen as a means of governing, but instead as essential bodies for counterbalancing the growing power of judges and the fear that power could be abused. Indeed, as the country matured during the nineteenth century, power shifted away form juries to judges, who increasingly controlled the procedures and outcomes of disputes and trials. Nonetheless, the jury still continued to be an important force in shaping common law, especially for tort actions, or when individuals sought compensation for the injuries they alleged were caused by other individuals or corporations. The right to trial by jury is firmly established in the Constitution of the United states. As adopted in 1789, the Constitution provided that the trial of all crimes except impeachment shall be by jury (: U.S. Constitution Art. Ⅲ, §2). Two additional provisions were added in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures a person accused of crime a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and the district where the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have previously been ascertained by law." This provision merely amplified the right protected in the original Constitution. The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right in federal civil cases: "In all suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Constitutions adopted by the original states also guaranteed the right to jury trial. A similar assurance was provided in the constitution of every state that subsequently joined the union. Today the right to trial by jury is protected in some form by both federal and state law. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right to jury trial in serious criminal cases must be recognized by the states as part of their obligation to provide due process of law to all persons within their jurisdiction. A jury is a body of laymen selected by lot, or by some other fair and impartial means, to ascertain, under the guidance of a judge, the truth in questions of face arising either in a civil or criminal proceeding. A common law jury is summoned from the vicinity, duly examined and sworn to try the cause on the facts presented by the evidence introduced at the trial. In civil cases, the right to jury trial may be waived by unilateral act of the litigant. The jury as an institution came under strong attack in the early years of the twentieth century, with opponents challenging its composition, procedures, and even its right to exist. These criticisms stimulated a series of empirical studies of the ways juries worked. The jury of today in the U.S. legal system has a mixed heritage. On the one hand, juries have been assigned a wide range of tasks, including the assessment of business morality, protection of the consuming public, the definition of key Constitutional rights, and the determination of questions of life and death in criminal cases. On the other hand, the jury system continues to be the target of reform proposals. Some of these have already been adopted: in many jurisdictions, juries can be fewer than twelve persons in size, unanimous verdicts are not required, questioning of jurors during voir dire has been limited, and the right of the parties to make peremptory challenges where no reason need to be given has been restricted. The civil jury as an institution is net invincible, as demonstrated by the fact that it disappeared in England in the years between the First World war and the Great Depression. If the jury in the United states is not to suffer the same fate, its importance to democratic values must be appreciated and significantly broader reform efforts resisted. This paper aims to introduce the history, characteristics, and the face-finding and punitive damages assessment functions of the U.S. civil jury system and to further research the current debates on improving its competence. As any society progresses, the development of a social institution is deeply affected by its constituents to reflect the unique views and values of the community. The focus and benefits of this research is twofold: Through researching the U.S. civil jury system, one can learn a great deal about the effects and implications of the social realities reflected in the system. Also, understanding the subtle strengths and weaknesses of a well-developed institution in another country will provide a unique insight and a different perspective to reviewing the development and effectiveness of similar institutions of our own. The U.S. civil jury system has created following characteristics of the U.S. legal system: The emphasis of logic and appeal to reason in substantive law, adoption of adversarial system with strong emphasis on oral pleading, and the development of highly sophisticated laws of evidence such as the principle of the exclusion of hearsay evidence. Overall, the U.S. jury system has become one of the characteristic social institutions of American society, along with he federal system of government and the diversity of its citizenship. A solid understanding of the U.S. jury system will aide in implementing the civil procedure and alternative dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration in Korea where the fact-finding process is a crucial element. This study of a well-developed institution will provide insights in the selection and qualification if fact-finders, especially arbitrators, as well as deliberation and control over the resulting agreement. Reviewing the various problems and challenges in the U.S. jury system will also provide a new perspective and create a new methodology for recognizing characteristic problems facing fact-finding processes. Such informed viewpoints will prove useful in researching our own system of dispute resolution
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.